ESA space policy discussion

[jstrotha0975]

They are still years behind in everything.

[hektor]

Ok, fine, but now the meagre amount which ESA was devoting to HSF was mostly (I write mostly to take into account Argonaut) in cooperation with NASA, and the entirety of these projects is on the brink of cancellation, so that this will have been mostly expenses without any positive outcome.

Yes, that's very well a possible outcome. NASA canning Lunar Gateway is not unrealistic under the current U.S. Administration. That would result in ESA and JAXA having spent the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars, only to see that money being flushed down the drain.

Frankly, when that happens, I hope it will result in ESA and the EU refocusing on Europe-only (human) spaceflight programs.

Alas, as it is, it's more likely that ESA and the EU will take a "let's wait and see" stance, in the hope that four years from now the next U.S. Administration will be more friendly to European interests.

Following today’s Isaacman hearing, the future of Europe’s human spaceflight (HSF) efforts looks bleak. The ESA has channeled most of its modest HSF budget into NASA-led projects like the Lunar Gateway, with the Argonaut lander as a partial exception. However, these initiatives now face potential cancellation under the current U.S. administration, risking hundreds of millions of dollars in European investment with little to show for it.

Isaacman’s influence could accelerate this shift, leaving ESA and some other international agencies in the lurch. While an ideal response might be for ESA and the EU to pivot toward independent, Europe-only HSF programs, this seems unlikely. More realistically, they’ll adopt a cautious “wait and see” approach, hoping a future U.S. administration aligns better with European goals. This hesitation could stall progress, underscoring Europe’s reliance on NASA and its vulnerability to American policy swings.

[woods170]

Ok, fine, but now the meagre amount which ESA was devoting to HSF was mostly (I write mostly to take into account Argonaut) in cooperation with NASA, and the entirety of these projects is on the brink of cancellation, so that this will have been mostly expenses without any positive outcome.

Yes, that's very well a possible outcome. NASA canning Lunar Gateway is not unrealistic under the current U.S. Administration. That would result in ESA and JAXA having spent the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars, only to see that money being flushed down the drain.

Frankly, when that happens, I hope it will result in ESA and the EU refocusing on Europe-only (human) spaceflight programs.

Alas, as it is, it's more likely that ESA and the EU will take a "let's wait and see" stance, in the hope that four years from now the next U.S. Administration will be more friendly to European interests.

Following today’s Isaacman hearing, the future of Europe’s human spaceflight (HSF) efforts looks bleak. The ESA has channeled most of its modest HSF budget into NASA-led projects like the Lunar Gateway, with the Argonaut lander as a partial exception. However, these initiatives now face potential cancellation under the current U.S. administration, risking hundreds of millions of dollars in European investment with little to show for it.

Isaacman’s influence could accelerate this shift, leaving ESA and some other international agencies in the lurch. While an ideal response might be for ESA and the EU to pivot toward independent, Europe-only HSF programs, this seems unlikely. More realistically, they’ll adopt a cautious “wait and see” approach, hoping a future U.S. administration aligns better with European goals. This hesitation could stall progress, underscoring Europe’s reliance on NASA and its vulnerability to American policy swings.

Emphasis mine.

Yeah. That's the most likely outcome, unfortunately.

What ESA should learn from the current situation is that it has to make a choice: do we fully commit to HSF or not?

The current half-baked commitment to HSF is exactly what has gotten ESA in the current bind. ESA wants its own astronauts "up there" but at the same time it's unwilling to spend the money to develop independent european crewed access to space. Meaning that ESA astronauts are dependent on Russia and the USA to get ESA astronauts "up there". Russia became a non-viable option in 2022. And now the USA is about to screw ESA over as well.

I can only hope that ESA leadership finally "sees the light" and starts funding serious crewed-access-to-space efforts. But I'm not optimistic.

[hektor]

You’re absolutely right that ESA’s half-hearted commitment to human spaceflight (HSF) is at the root of its current predicament. The agency’s approach—wanting astronauts in space but refusing to invest in independent crewed access—has left it perilously dependent on external partners. Russia’s Soyuz was a lifeline until geopolitical tensions in 2022 made it untenable. Now, with NASA’s Lunar Gateway and related projects teetering under the current U.S. administration, ESA risks seeing its contributions—hundreds of millions of euros—evaporate without tangible results. The Isaacman hearing only amplifies this uncertainty, hinting at a U.S. shift that could leave international partners like ESA (and others) scrambling.

Your point about ESA leadership indeed applies to national delegations, especially the "big three" (Germany, France, and Italy), and is spot-on. ESA’s leadership, including Director General Josef Aschbacher, can push for bold HSF initiatives, but the real power lies with these member states. Aschbacher did champion a crewed system during the 2022 Ministerial Council, but the outcome was lukewarm at best—a modestly funded study for a cargo vehicle aimed at hypothetical commercial space stations in low Earth orbit (LEO). It’s a far cry from the robust, independent HSF capability ESA needs. The big three’s priorities often lean toward industrial returns—think launchers like Ariane or satellite programs—over the long-term vision of crewed exploration, which requires sustained investment and political will.

Historically, ESA has excelled in robotic missions—think Rosetta or Huygens—but its HSF efforts have been tethered to NASA’s ambitions, from Spacelab to the International Space Station (ISS). The Lunar Gateway was meant to be a continuation of that partnership, with ESA providing key components like the I-Hab module. If the U.S. pulls the plug, it’s not just a financial loss; it’s a blow to morale and credibility. An optimistic pivot would be for ESA to channel this frustration into a Europe-only HSF program—perhaps building on the Argonaut lander or reviving concepts like the Crew Transport Vehicle (CTV) from the 1990s.

But as you noted, the “wait and see” stance feels more likely, betting on a friendlier U.S. administration post-2028.
The irony is that Europe has the technical know-how and industrial base—Airbus and Thales Alenia Space - or even The Exploration Company - could spearhead a crewed spacecraft if funded properly. Yet, the national delegations’ reluctance to commit suggests HSF remains a prestige project rather than a strategic priority. Without a shock to the system—like a firm U.S. cancellation and a message that European astronauts to the Moon will need transfer of massive amounts of European cash to NASA—ESA’s leadership might lack the leverage to force a decision. I share your pessimism: the current bind might not be enough to light a fire under the big three, and ESA’s astronauts could stay grounded longer than anyone hopes, with only an Axiom flight from time to time, when their home country, Sweden, Poland or Czech Republic, feels like mounting a stunt by flying them to LEO

[yg1968]

The current half-baked commitment to HSF is exactly what has gotten ESA in the current bind. ESA wants its own astronauts "up there" but at the same time it's unwilling to spend the money to develop independent european crewed access to space. Meaning that ESA astronauts are dependent on Russia and the USA to get ESA astronauts "up there". Russia became a non-viable option in 2022. And now the USA is about to screw ESA over as well.

I can only hope that ESA leadership finally "sees the light" and starts funding serious crewed-access-to-space efforts. But I'm not optimistic.

The United States isn't about to screw anybody over. If SLS and Gateway are cancelled, they will likely be replaced by commercial options which any country can use. It is easier to deal with commercial companies than it is with NASA, international partners including ESA stand to gain from these changes. European companies are involved in the Commercial LEO Destinations program (for example in Axiom's modules) and that should continue.

Other than Gateway, ESA hadn't really committed to Artemis anyways. Argonaut and Moonlight were of little use to NASA. I expect ESA to continue these programs regardless of what NASA does with Artemis.

[hektor]

The claim that "ESA hadn't really committed to Artemis anyways" does not align with the substantial contributions the European Space Agency (ESA) has made to the Artemis programme, as evidenced by its significant investments in both hardware and budget. Below is a detailed overview of ESA’s contributions to Artemis, focusing on the six European Service Modules (ESMs) and the Gateway modules, along with associated committed budgets from open sources, demonstrating ESA’s deep involvement.

ESA has committed to supplying six European Service Modules for NASA’s Orion spacecraft, which are critical for propulsion, power, thermal control, and life support during Artemis missions. The ESMs are manufactured by Airbus Defence and Space in Bremen, Germany, with contributions from multiple European countries. To date, NASA has ordered these six ESMs, with ESM-1 successfully powering the uncrewed Artemis I mission in 2022, ESM-2 delivered for Artemis II (the first crewed mission), and ESM-3 through ESM-6 in various stages of production for Artemis III to VI. The structure for ESM-6 arrived in Bremen on 8 September 2023 for integration, destined for Artemis VI to support crewed travel to the lunar Gateway. While exact costs for all six ESMs are not fully itemised in open sources, ESA’s initial contribution for the first three ESMs was tied to a €350 million commitment reported in 2019 as part of its broader Artemis involvement, with subsequent contracts expanding this scope. The total investment for six ESMs likely exceeds this figure, at probably more that 1 B€, reflecting a significant financial and technical commitment.

For the Lunar Gateway, ESA is providing two key pressurised modules: the International Habitation Module (I-Hab) and the Lunar View module, both under development by Thales Alenia Space. I-Hab, set for delivery during Artemis IV (no earlier than 2028), will serve as a primary habitat for astronauts, offering living quarters and docking ports, with an estimated contract value of €327 million based on initial agreements signed in 2020. Lunar View, slated for Artemis V, is a refuelling and observation module with large windows, part of the ESPRIT (European System Providing Refuelling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications) system. A 2024 contract amendment with Thales Alenia Space for ESPRIT’s optimisation is valued at €164 million, bringing ESA’s Gateway contributions into the hundreds of millions. Additionally, ESA provides the Lunar Link communications system, integrated with NASA’s HALO module, enhancing lunar surface communication, though specific budget details for this component are less distinct in open sources.

Beyond these, ESA’s broader Artemis engagement includes astronaut participation, with three “crew opportunities” to the Gateway secured under a 2020 NASA-ESA Memorandum of Understanding, and contributions like scientific instruments and life support systems via partnerships with JAXA. While projects like Argonaut (European Large Logistic Lander) and Moonlight (lunar communication network) are indeed independent ESA initiatives, they were designed to complement Artemis goals, with Argonaut studies funded at €36 million initially and Moonlight progressing under ESA’s own framework. These efforts, while not NASA-dependent, enhance the Artemis ecosystem.

Given these contributions—six ESMs with a budget likely exceeding €1 billion, I-Hab at €327 million, Lunar View and ESPRIT at €164 million for recent upgrades, plus additional investments—ESA’s commitment to Artemis is robust, contradicting the notion of minimal involvement. The suggestion that ESA stands to gain more from commercial shifts overlooks its established role in Artemis, including European companies like Airbus and Thales Alenia Space, which are already integrated into commercial projects like Axiom’s modules. The statement underestimates ESA’s tangible and strategic dedication to Artemis, which spans critical hardware, significant funding, and a clear intent to support lunar exploration alongside NASA and other partners.

[yg1968]

The claim that "ESA hadn't really committed to Artemis anyways" does not align with the substantial contributions the European Space Agency (ESA) has made to the Artemis programme, as evidenced by its significant investments in both hardware and budget. Below is a detailed overview of ESA’s contributions to Artemis, focusing on the six European Service Modules (ESMs) and the Gateway modules, along with associated committed budgets from open sources, demonstrating ESA’s deep involvement.

ESA has committed to supplying six European Service Modules for NASA’s Orion spacecraft, which are critical for propulsion, power, thermal control, and life support during Artemis missions. The ESMs are manufactured by Airbus Defence and Space in Bremen, Germany, with contributions from multiple European countries. To date, NASA has ordered these six ESMs, with ESM-1 successfully powering the uncrewed Artemis I mission in 2022, ESM-2 delivered for Artemis II (the first crewed mission), and ESM-3 through ESM-6 in various stages of production for Artemis III to VI. The structure for ESM-6 arrived in Bremen on 8 September 2023 for integration, destined for Artemis VI to support crewed travel to the lunar Gateway. While exact costs for all six ESMs are not fully itemised in open sources, ESA’s initial contribution for the first three ESMs was tied to a €350 million commitment reported in 2019 as part of its broader Artemis involvement, with subsequent contracts expanding this scope. The total investment for six ESMs likely exceeds this figure, at probably more that 1 B€, reflecting a significant financial and technical commitment.

For the Lunar Gateway, ESA is providing two key pressurised modules: the International Habitation Module (I-Hab) and the Lunar View module, both under development by Thales Alenia Space. I-Hab, set for delivery during Artemis IV (no earlier than 2028), will serve as a primary habitat for astronauts, offering living quarters and docking ports, with an estimated contract value of €327 million based on initial agreements signed in 2020. Lunar View, slated for Artemis V, is a refuelling and observation module with large windows, part of the ESPRIT (European System Providing Refuelling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications) system. A 2024 contract amendment with Thales Alenia Space for ESPRIT’s optimisation is valued at €164 million, bringing ESA’s Gateway contributions into the hundreds of millions. Additionally, ESA provides the Lunar Link communications system, integrated with NASA’s HALO module, enhancing lunar surface communication, though specific budget details for this component are less distinct in open sources.

Beyond these, ESA’s broader Artemis engagement includes astronaut participation, with three “crew opportunities” to the Gateway secured under a 2020 NASA-ESA Memorandum of Understanding, and contributions like scientific instruments and life support systems via partnerships with JAXA. While projects like Argonaut (European Large Logistic Lander) and Moonlight (lunar communication network) are indeed independent ESA initiatives, they were designed to complement Artemis goals, with Argonaut studies funded at €36 million initially and Moonlight progressing under ESA’s own framework. These efforts, while not NASA-dependent, enhance the Artemis ecosystem.

Given these contributions—six ESMs with a budget likely exceeding €1 billion, I-Hab at €327 million, Lunar View and ESPRIT at €164 million for recent upgrades, plus additional investments—ESA’s commitment to Artemis is robust, contradicting the notion of minimal involvement. The suggestion that ESA stands to gain more from commercial shifts overlooks its established role in Artemis, including European companies like Airbus and Thales Alenia Space, which are already integrated into commercial projects like Axiom’s modules. The statement underestimates ESA’s tangible and strategic dedication to Artemis, which spans critical hardware, significant funding, and a clear intent to support lunar exploration alongside NASA and other partners.

I did say other than Gateway. The only country that has signed a lunar surface agreement is Japan, ESA and Canada haven't signed one yet.

In any event, Gateway and SLS are a waste of taxpayer money for everyone including ESA. The idea that international collaboration can only be done through government programs is part of the problem. Countries can do collaboration (through barter or otherwise) with commercial programs. Commercial crew is an example of that.

[hektor]

Other than Gateway? So, committing to six ESMs when ESA was ready to sign for nine, and I suspect it won’t happen, is that nothing? Sorry, but woods170’s characterization of sending over one billion in European investment and taxpayer money down the drain as "screwing ESA" seems accurate to me.

Directing European funds to U.S. vendors like SpaceX, Vast, or Axiom is either a non-starter or would only happen in a very limited, anecdotal way. And a commercial sector can’t emerge in Europe because ESA’s purchasing power is way too low to make a European commercial human spaceflight company viable.

[yg1968]

Other than Gateway? So, committing to six ESMs when ESA was ready to sign for nine, and I suspect it won’t happen, is that nothing? Sorry, but woods170’s characterization of sending over one billion in European investment and taxpayer money down the drain as "screwing ESA" seems accurate to me.

Directing European funds to U.S. vendors like SpaceX, Vast, or Axiom is either a non-starter or would only happen in a very limited, anecdotal way. And a commercial sector can’t emerge in Europe because ESA’s purchasing power is way too low to make a European commercial human spaceflight company viable.

A number of ESMs predate Artemis and part of them relate to contributions for the ISS. In any event, you are assuming that ESA will get nothing in exchange for those and nobody has said that. Furthermore, U.S. taxpayers are losing money also on SLS and Gateway cancelations (if they happen), so it's not just European taxpayers that are losing out. If anything, cancelling SLS prevents ESA from wasting even more money on another wasteful government program. The lesson here is that ESA (and NASA) should stop contributing to wasteful government programs, not that international cooperation is bad in and of itself.

[woods170]

The current half-baked commitment to HSF is exactly what has gotten ESA in the current bind. ESA wants its own astronauts "up there" but at the same time it's unwilling to spend the money to develop independent european crewed access to space. Meaning that ESA astronauts are dependent on Russia and the USA to get ESA astronauts "up there". Russia became a non-viable option in 2022. And now the USA is about to screw ESA over as well.

I can only hope that ESA leadership finally "sees the light" and starts funding serious crewed-access-to-space efforts. But I'm not optimistic.

The United States isn't about to screw anybody over. If SLS and Gateway are cancelled, they will likely be replaced by commercial options which any country can use. It is easier to deal with commercial companies than it is with NASA, international partners including ESA stand to gain from these changes. European companies are involved in the Commercial LEO Destinations program (for example in Axiom's modules) and that should continue.

Other than Gateway, ESA hadn't really committed to Artemis anyways. Argonaut and Moonlight were of little use to NASA. I expect ESA to continue these programs regardless of what NASA does with Artemis.

Gateway is exactly the thing that would translate in "the USA screwing over ESA" if it gets cancelled. ESA, and JAXA as well, have invested hundred of millions of dollars in development of Gateway modules. If the USA cancels Gateway, that investment goes down the drain because the European and Japanese Gateway modules are of no use to commercial space stations.

Cancelling Gateway literally means that ESA and JAXA can take their modules and dump them in a scrapyard. There's no other use for them beyond Gateway.

So yeah, the USA cancelling Gateway would mean that the USA just screwed over ESA (and JAXA) for several hundreds of millions of dollars.
Much like how NASA withdrawing from ExoMars in 2012 eventually resulted in a delay of over a decade and hundreds of millions of Euros wasted.

[DanClemmensen]

The current half-baked commitment to HSF is exactly what has gotten ESA in the current bind. ESA wants its own astronauts "up there" but at the same time it's unwilling to spend the money to develop independent european crewed access to space. Meaning that ESA astronauts are dependent on Russia and the USA to get ESA astronauts "up there". Russia became a non-viable option in 2022. And now the USA is about to screw ESA over as well.

I can only hope that ESA leadership finally "sees the light" and starts funding serious crewed-access-to-space efforts. But I'm not optimistic.

The United States isn't about to screw anybody over. If SLS and Gateway are cancelled, they will likely be replaced by commercial options which any country can use. It is easier to deal with commercial companies than it is with NASA, international partners including ESA stand to gain from these changes. European companies are involved in the Commercial LEO Destinations program (for example in Axiom's modules) and that should continue.

Other than Gateway, ESA hadn't really committed to Artemis anyways. Argonaut and Moonlight were of little use to NASA. I expect ESA to continue these programs regardless of what NASA does with Artemis.

Gateway is exactly the thing that would translate in "the USA screwing over ESA" if it gets cancelled. ESA, and JAXA as well, have invested hundred of millions of dollars in development of Gateway modules. If the USA cancels Gateway, that investment goes down the drain because the European and Japanese Gateway modules are of no use to commercial space stations.

Cancelling Gateway literally means that ESA and JAXA can take their modules and dump them in a scrapyard. There's no other use for them beyond Gateway.

So yeah, the USA cancelling Gateway would mean that the USA just screwed over ESA (and JAXA) for several hundreds of millions of dollars.
Much like how NASA withdrawing from ExoMars in 2012 eventually resulted in a delay of over a decade and hundreds of millions of Euros wasted.

Sunk costs are sunk. If SLS/Orion are cancelled, Gateway in NRHO has zero value, which it the same value as scrapping it. Putting Gateway in LEO as an interim replacement for ISS may have value. Plug it into a CLD it make it big enough to do useful work.

Alternatively, if the US congress and administration feel that they have a moral or ethical commitment to honor our implied support for the foreign investments in Gateway, NASA could purchase the Gateway modules for less than the cost of a single SLS/Orion mission.

[yg1968]

The current half-baked commitment to HSF is exactly what has gotten ESA in the current bind. ESA wants its own astronauts "up there" but at the same time it's unwilling to spend the money to develop independent european crewed access to space. Meaning that ESA astronauts are dependent on Russia and the USA to get ESA astronauts "up there". Russia became a non-viable option in 2022. And now the USA is about to screw ESA over as well.

I can only hope that ESA leadership finally "sees the light" and starts funding serious crewed-access-to-space efforts. But I'm not optimistic.

The United States isn't about to screw anybody over. If SLS and Gateway are cancelled, they will likely be replaced by commercial options which any country can use. It is easier to deal with commercial companies than it is with NASA, international partners including ESA stand to gain from these changes. European companies are involved in the Commercial LEO Destinations program (for example in Axiom's modules) and that should continue.

Other than Gateway, ESA hadn't really committed to Artemis anyways. Argonaut and Moonlight were of little use to NASA. I expect ESA to continue these programs regardless of what NASA does with Artemis.

Gateway is exactly the thing that would translate in "the USA screwing over ESA" if it gets cancelled. ESA, and JAXA as well, have invested hundred of millions of dollars in development of Gateway modules. If the USA cancels Gateway, that investment goes down the drain because the European and Japanese Gateway modules are of no use to commercial space stations.

Cancelling Gateway literally means that ESA and JAXA can take their modules and dump them in a scrapyard. There's no other use for them beyond Gateway.

So yeah, the USA cancelling Gateway would mean that the USA just screwed over ESA (and JAXA) for several hundreds of millions of dollars.
Much like how NASA withdrawing from ExoMars in 2012 eventually resulted in a delay of over a decade and hundreds of millions of Euros wasted.

Like I said above, you (and Hektor) are assuming that ESA will get nothing in return which may not be the case. Furthermore, Gateway is part of the IGA, so it is an agreement that gets commingled with the contributions to the ISS and the ISS isn't getting cancelled until 2030 per Isaacman.

[yg1968]

The current half-baked commitment to HSF is exactly what has gotten ESA in the current bind. ESA wants its own astronauts "up there" but at the same time it's unwilling to spend the money to develop independent european crewed access to space. Meaning that ESA astronauts are dependent on Russia and the USA to get ESA astronauts "up there". Russia became a non-viable option in 2022. And now the USA is about to screw ESA over as well.

I can only hope that ESA leadership finally "sees the light" and starts funding serious crewed-access-to-space efforts. But I'm not optimistic.

The United States isn't about to screw anybody over. If SLS and Gateway are cancelled, they will likely be replaced by commercial options which any country can use. It is easier to deal with commercial companies than it is with NASA, international partners including ESA stand to gain from these changes. European companies are involved in the Commercial LEO Destinations program (for example in Axiom's modules) and that should continue.

Other than Gateway, ESA hadn't really committed to Artemis anyways. Argonaut and Moonlight were of little use to NASA. I expect ESA to continue these programs regardless of what NASA does with Artemis.

Gateway is exactly the thing that would translate in "the USA screwing over ESA" if it gets cancelled. ESA, and JAXA as well, have invested hundred of millions of dollars in development of Gateway modules. If the USA cancels Gateway, that investment goes down the drain because the European and Japanese Gateway modules are of no use to commercial space stations.

Cancelling Gateway literally means that ESA and JAXA can take their modules and dump them in a scrapyard. There's no other use for them beyond Gateway.

So yeah, the USA cancelling Gateway would mean that the USA just screwed over ESA (and JAXA) for several hundreds of millions of dollars.
Much like how NASA withdrawing from ExoMars in 2012 eventually resulted in a delay of over a decade and hundreds of millions of Euros wasted.

Sunk costs are sunk. If SLS/Orion are cancelled, Gateway in NRHO has zero value, which it the same value as scrapping it. Putting Gateway in LEO as an interim replacement for ISS may have value. Plug it into a CLD it make it big enough to do useful work.

Alternatively, if the US congress and administration feel that they have a moral or ethical commitment to honor our implied support for the foreign investments in Gateway, NASA could purchase the Gateway modules for less than the cost of a single SLS/Orion mission.

It might be an option for Japan and ESA but I doubt that NASA would participate in a LEO Gateway as they already have the CLD (Commercial LEO Destinations) program. Would this LEO Gateway need PPE and HALO?

[spacenut]

I don't think Artemis Gateway will be cancelled.  It is built by private launch companies.  If anything SLS and Orion will get cancelled due to cost and keeping a standing army of workers for one launch a year doesn't make sense.  It will shift to private companies to launch.  Dragon and Superheavy/Starship maybe, New Glenn.  Heck if they get the war in Ukraine stopped, Russia may join in with a few launches of equipment or supplies. 

[DanClemmensen]

The current half-baked commitment to HSF is exactly what has gotten ESA in the current bind. ESA wants its own astronauts "up there" but at the same time it's unwilling to spend the money to develop independent european crewed access to space. Meaning that ESA astronauts are dependent on Russia and the USA to get ESA astronauts "up there". Russia became a non-viable option in 2022. And now the USA is about to screw ESA over as well.

I can only hope that ESA leadership finally "sees the light" and starts funding serious crewed-access-to-space efforts. But I'm not optimistic.

The United States isn't about to screw anybody over. If SLS and Gateway are cancelled, they will likely be replaced by commercial options which any country can use. It is easier to deal with commercial companies than it is with NASA, international partners including ESA stand to gain from these changes. European companies are involved in the Commercial LEO Destinations program (for example in Axiom's modules) and that should continue.

Other than Gateway, ESA hadn't really committed to Artemis anyways. Argonaut and Moonlight were of little use to NASA. I expect ESA to continue these programs regardless of what NASA does with Artemis.

Gateway is exactly the thing that would translate in "the USA screwing over ESA" if it gets cancelled. ESA, and JAXA as well, have invested hundred of millions of dollars in development of Gateway modules. If the USA cancels Gateway, that investment goes down the drain because the European and Japanese Gateway modules are of no use to commercial space stations.

Cancelling Gateway literally means that ESA and JAXA can take their modules and dump them in a scrapyard. There's no other use for them beyond Gateway.

So yeah, the USA cancelling Gateway would mean that the USA just screwed over ESA (and JAXA) for several hundreds of millions of dollars.
Much like how NASA withdrawing from ExoMars in 2012 eventually resulted in a delay of over a decade and hundreds of millions of Euros wasted.

Sunk costs are sunk. If SLS/Orion are cancelled, Gateway in NRHO has zero value, which it the same value as scrapping it. Putting Gateway in LEO as an interim replacement for ISS may have value. Plug it into a CLD it make it big enough to do useful work.

Alternatively, if the US congress and administration feel that they have a moral or ethical commitment to honor our implied support for the foreign investments in Gateway, NASA could purchase the Gateway modules for less than the cost of a single SLS/Orion mission.

It might be an option for Japan and ESA but I doubt that NASA would participate in a LEO Gateway as they already have the CLD program. Would this LEO Gateway need PPE and HALO?

PPE+HALO gives you reboost, station-keeping, some solar power, and a net gain of one IDSS port. I-Hab gets you another net gain of two IDSS ports. The other modules give you some less obvious benefits that are probably net gains for any of the early CLDs. You probably would not design a CLD this way, but the premise is that sunk costs are sunk and we are looking at incremental costs.

[RedLineTrain]

Gateway is exactly the thing that would translate in "the USA screwing over ESA" if it gets cancelled.

That's a weird way of looking at it.  The USA would be saving ESA from spending a whole bunch of additional money on low value activities.

[zodiacchris]

Good grief, why isn’t there a dislike button on NSF??

[hektor]

As predicted, the human spaceflight program of Europe is now mostly proposed for cancellation.

This includes ISS, where leaner crews will mean fewer flight opportunities for European astronauts. This includes MSR, and I wonder about Rosalind Franklin...

[zubenelgenubi]

Good grief, why isn’t there a dislike button on NSF??

Moderator:
Because it would be instantly and massively misused.  We all know that.

[laszlo]

Good grief, why isn’t there a dislike button on NSF??

Moderator:
Because it would be instantly and massively misused.  We all know that.

I don't see how that's the case. All it would show is that the reader dislikes a post. It would not require posters to pay attention to it. Since it would not allow political or uncivil comments, it seems to me that it would solve many of the problems that lead to locked and deleted threads (and occasional bans). It could actually make the mods' jobs easier.