While it is true that Roscosmos has had it's share of delays and failures they are still making progress on their program of record, the Angara rocket and the large crew capsule which is comparable to the pace of progress being made in the SLS/Orion, so they should both be available at around the same time. And while unmanned Roscosmos equipment fails regularly they have not had a lose of life in manned space flight in ages, a point the ESA would value highly. Remember ESA astronauts are already being trusted to Soyuz launches and the new capsule may be the Russian ride to ISS briefly which would get the Europeans riding on it. On the other hand their is a long history of attempted partnerships between ESA and Roscosmos that have fallen through so it is by no means assured.Quote from: redliox on 05/03/2015 10:56 amEpic 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!"Presidents don't control the Space Program, and even if they did the same party might retain the White house which should presumably result in no change. I think the change of the administration AND the party are both irreverent.What I expect is that Congress gets all worried about 'losing Americas leadership position in Space' and actually ponies up the money for a lunar lander or lets NASA do some kind of lunar COTS program, and instructs NASA to partner with other nations in returning to the moon.Note that is it not the idea of the Chinese or the Russians or even ESA landing on the moon individually that is goigng to scare people, that can always be dismissed as a 'rehash' of Apollo, it's the idea that they all might start cooperating together with any one of the three being the new 'leader' of that join venture. That's a pattern America would be very worried about because it would be a clear signal that the US is not the one and only possible leader of any international endeavour.
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!"
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/02/2015 10:40 pmEssentially 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 has 3 major choices:1. All European mission that will land on the Moon in about 30 years time. Build the capsule first and then the lander. All that development work will be expensive.2. All European mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the capsule and lander simultaneously, Apollo style. Cost so high that in these austere times that pensions will have to be cancelled - expect riots.3. Mixed mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the lander and obtain transport to LEO from the Americans and/or Russians. About half the cost of option 2.I suspect that ESA will go for the quickest and cheapest option which is option 3.
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 is also doing the Service Module for Orion, but my understanding is that these are essentially ATVs with the cargo section chopped off (minimal development cost) AND these modules are being bartered to the US in exchange for ISS usage, the same thing ATV did. So the production of these service modules doesn't earn ESA trips on Orion to BLEO.
1. Isn't ESA going to get a capsule or vehicle of some kind to launch people in regardless? They have speculated on this for so long with Klipper, man-rated ATV concepts etc etc. It now looks like Dream Chaser might be their vehicle and naturally they would put it on Ariane V. It dose not look like gaining this capability will break the bank as they are only looking to do a LEO-taxi type vehicle and they already have the launch vehicle to put it on.2. ESA is also doing the Service Module for Orion, but my understanding is that these are essentially ATVs with the cargo section chopped off (minimal development cost) AND these modules are being bartered to the US in exchange for ISS usage, the same thing ATV did. So the production of these service modules doesn't earn ESA trips on Orion to BLEO.
ESA might simply partner with Russia to do this.
And ESA has a good working relationship with Roscosmos and other up and coming space agencies may also come on-board.
3. Mixed mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the lander and obtain transport to LEO from the Americans and/or Russians. About half the cost of option 2.I suspect that ESA will go for the quickest and cheapest option which is option 3.
What's with all the silly posts here that assume that ESA would even have a remotely realistic chance of pulling off a manned lunar base on their own?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/03/2015 04:51 pm3. Mixed mission that will land on the Moon in about 15 years time. Build the lander and obtain transport to LEO from the Americans and/or Russians. About half the cost of option 2.I suspect that ESA will go for the quickest and cheapest option which is option 3.What do the Russians have that the Europeans don't have transportation-wise? Ariane 5/6 can loft more than Proton, and from what I can tell Angara A5 too.And we already know from studies that ULA has released that ULA feels that establishing an enduring presence on the Moon can be done with existing launchers in the 20mt to LEO range (i.e. Atlas 5, Delta IV Heavy, Arian 5/6, Proton, etc.). No doubt the Europeans are aware of that study too.The challenge with depending on the U.S. is that they have been burned before with a waffling U.S. Congress. Plus, not to debate this, but no one knows how long the SLS will be around, and the Europeans would be concerned with building any hardware that could be orphaned due to decisions made out of their hands.So to me I think if they are serious about going to the Moon that they will initially focus on what it would take to do it using existing launchers, and specifically with the launchers they own.
And I would have NASA first begin this lunar exploration program, by starting a robotic exploration subset program of the Lunar program- which is what NASA did with Apollo- but of course we in the 21 century so we have more robotic capability- as compared to then. So as part of Lunar exploration start with a lot robotic missions to the Moon.
Quote from: gbaikie on 05/04/2015 11:48 pmAnd I would have NASA first begin this lunar exploration program, by starting a robotic exploration subset program of the Lunar program- which is what NASA did with Apollo- but of course we in the 21 century so we have more robotic capability- as compared to then. So as part of Lunar exploration start with a lot robotic missions to the Moon.Why do we need to send a whole new fleet of robotic explorers before sending humans? Have we lost all of the data from dozens of robotic and manned missions to the Moon over 57 years?We don't need repeat Apollo to go to the same destination.
And you can bet on no development money from ESA for Dream Chaser.
Mr Wörner has at least a vision in terms of European human space exploration, thatīs quite rare among European space politicians. But letīs remember heīll be only the chief of ESA. A manned European lunar programme would be really great, but also need strong political support from ESAīs member states. Iīm afraid but I donīt see this happen too soon.
ESA has published an exploration strategyhttp://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ESA_Space_Exploration_Strategy/