ESA space policy discussion

[hektor]

ESA Director General reaction to a reduced budget proposal for NASA

[yg1968]

ESA Reacts to Proposed NASA Budget Cuts:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/esa-reacts-to-proposed-nasa-budget-cuts/

[edzieba]

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.

ESA has already spent the money. What they would be losing out on is what they traded the modules for: ESA astronaut flights to the Moon.

To use the ol' Car Analogy: In exchange for the ESA building NASA a car engine, NASA would then put that ESA engine in a NASA car drive ESA astronauts somewhere in that car for free. The ESA purchased parts and build the engine, but now NASA have cancelled the roadtrip using the car in favour of hiring a taxi. But since NASA are no longer getting a car engine from the ESA, why would they offer a free ride to ESA astronauts in the taxi NASA is paying for? The engine the ESA built is useless without NASA, but the ESA has nothing to show for the money they spent building it.


This is also why "just use a commercial option" isn't viable for the ESA: ESA/NASA cooperation has not been on the basis of paying for goods/services, but on barter agreements (e.g. building hardware that NASA then uses, or providing a launch of a NASA satellite in exchange for hosting instruments, etc) without transfer of funds. That's not an option with commercial providers, who operate based on transfer of funds.

[woods170]

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.

ESA has already spent the money. What they would be losing out on is what they traded the modules for: ESA astronaut flights to the Moon.

To use the ol' Car Analogy: In exchange for the ESA building NASA a car engine, NASA would then put that ESA engine in a NASA car drive ESA astronauts somewhere in that car for free. The ESA purchased parts and build the engine, but now NASA have cancelled the roadtrip using the car in favour of hiring a taxi. But since NASA are no longer getting a car engine from the ESA, why would they offer a free ride to ESA astronauts in the taxi NASA is paying for? The engine the ESA built is useless without NASA, but the ESA has nothing to show for the money they spent building it.


This is also why "just use a commercial option" isn't viable for the ESA: ESA/NASA cooperation has not been on the basis of paying for goods/services, but on barter agreements (e.g. building hardware that NASA then uses, or providing a launch of a NASA satellite in exchange for hosting instruments, etc) without transfer of funds. That's not an option with commercial providers, who operate based on transfer of funds.

To elaborate a little further on Edzieba's excellent description of the ESA-NASA cooperation:

For Human Space Flight (HSF) efforts, there is a long history of ESA supplying hardware in return for NASA flying ESA astronauts to space:

- ESA built the "Mission Module" (or actually: two of them) for the Space Shuttle. These were known as Spacelab. In exchange for ESA supplying two complete Spacelab sets, NASA flew several ESA astronauts to space (among them the first three ESA astronauts: Ulf Merbold, Wubbo Ockels and Claude Nicollier)

- ESA built two of the three "Node" Modules of the International Space Station, as well as the Cupola (after NASA initially canceled it in the mid-1990s), in exchange for NASA lifting the European laboratory module "Columbus" towards the ISS on a dedicated Space Shuttle mission.

- ESA developed, built and flew five (5) Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) cargo spacecraft in exchange for ESA's use of ISS facilities between 1998 and 2015, including flying a certain number of ESA astronauts to the ISS on NASA-paid missions.

- ESA developed and built three European Service Modules (for Artemis missions 1, 2 and 3) for the Orion spacecraft, in exchange for ESA's continued use of ISS facilities between 2015 and 2028, including flying a certain number of ESA astronauts to the ISS.

- ESA agreed with NASA to build an additional three European Service Modules (for Artemis missions 4, 5 and 6), as well as provide the Lunar Gateway iHAB and ESPRIT modules, in exchange for ESA astronauts flying on at least three Artemis missions to lunar orbit.


This goes to show that bartering is almost as old as international cooperation in spaceflight. And it doesn't just apply to HSF. Bartering is even more common in uncrewed spaceflight. For example: the Netherlands got its first satellite (Astronomical Netherlands Satellite) launched for free by NASA, in exchange for hosting an American Hard X-ray instrument on the satellite.

Another example: ESA built and delivered the the solar array system and the Faint Object Camera for the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), in exchange for a guaranteed amount of HST observation time for European astronomers, as well as direct access to the data coming from the other three science instruments.
A very similar arrangement applies to the James Webb Space Telescope. ESA supplied an instrument and launched the observatory, in exchange for direct access to the data coming from all science instruments, as well as having a guaranteed amount of JWST observation time reserved for European astronomers.

The list of bartering agreements between ESA and NASA is a long one. I've provided only a very small number of examples above.


So, in general, bartering works great. That is until one of the partners in the barter agreements decides to bail out. Which has happened a few times. For example: in 2012 the Obama administration cancelled its involvement in the European ExoMars mission, due to budget cuts. Under the original agreement NASA would provide radioisotope heater units, the lander and provide the launch of the ExoMars rover, in exchange for the ExoMars mission hosting multiple NASA instruments and NASA having direct access to all science data generated by the mission.
When NASA bailed out, that left ESA in a bind. They had to turn to Russia for a replacement lander and RHUs. But then in 2022 Russia invaded the Ukraine and ESA removed Russia from the project. NASA, under Biden, stepped back in partially, by providing the RHUs and the launch. But, if the current proposed budget cuts go forward, NASA will once again be dropping out of ExoMars, leaving ESA in a bind for a second time.

[leovinus]

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.

ESA has already spent the money. What they would be losing out on is what they traded the modules for: ESA astronaut flights to the Moon.

To use the ol' Car Analogy: In exchange for the ESA building NASA a car engine, NASA would then put that ESA engine in a NASA car drive ESA astronauts somewhere in that car for free. The ESA purchased parts and build the engine, but now NASA have cancelled the roadtrip using the car in favour of hiring a taxi. But since NASA are no longer getting a car engine from the ESA, why would they offer a free ride to ESA astronauts in the taxi NASA is paying for? The engine the ESA built is useless without NASA, but the ESA has nothing to show for the money they spent building it.

This is also why "just use a commercial option" isn't viable for the ESA: ESA/NASA cooperation has not been on the basis of paying for goods/services, but on barter agreements (e.g. building hardware that NASA then uses, or providing a launch of a NASA satellite in exchange for hosting instruments, etc) without transfer of funds. That's not an option with commercial providers, who operate based on transfer of funds.

To elaborate a little further on Edzieba's excellent description of the ESA-NASA cooperation:

For Human Space Flight (HSF) efforts, there is a long history of ESA supplying hardware in return for NASA flying ESA astronauts to space:

- ESA built the "Mission Module" (or actually: two of them) for the Space Shuttle. These were known as Spacelab. In exchange for ESA supplying two complete Spacelab sets, NASA flew several ESA astronauts to space (among them the first three ESA astronauts: Ulf Merbold, Wubbo Ockels and Claude Nicollier)
[snip]

While this is a good, constructive list, we should not forget about earlier problematic Europe/NASA interactions. In particular, the Space Tug decision in 1972 which I wrote about. 

The point is that the European Spacelab was the only Europe/NASA cooperation that could be agreed upon in 1972 as the tug fell by the wayside. You can image the more colorful European language at the time to describe this unilateral decision to develop the tug in the USA (which they did not do in the end) and Spacelab as a peace offering along clean interfaces.

The current situation with US budget proposals reminds me of 1972. ESA is mostly in an observer role. While continued ESA/NASA bartering and cooperation along the lines of European science/people on US transport seems useful, we should learn from history and not stumble into the same pitfall too often.

Therefore, it seems like a good time to revive more European effort and money to build independent space transport. More of a "build something" instead of "Another EU framework program with money to keep studying". Maybe a reusable Ariane7 plus a German rocket with both a Hermes v2 and Horus v2 to keep both Germany and France happy. Two launchers, two crew and cargo systems. I know, keep dreaming. We need some better EU leadership to lead maybe like Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand.

See also the pages attached from two history books.
- J. Krige and A. Russo "A History of the European Space Agency 1958 – 1987, Volume 1", 2000
- G. Collins, "Europe in Space ", 1990

[woods170]

The current situation with US budget proposals reminds me of 1972. ESA is mostly in an observer role. While continued ESA/NASA bartering and cooperation along the lines of European science/people on US transport seems useful, we should learn from history and not stumble into the same pitfall too often.

Therefore, it seems like a good time to revive more European effort and money to build independent space transport. More of a "build something" instead of "Another EU framework program with money to keep studying". Maybe a reusable Ariane7 plus a German rocket with both a Hermes v2 and Horus v2 to keep both Germany and France happy. Two launchers, two crew and cargo systems. I know, keep dreaming. We need some better EU leadership to lead maybe like Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand.

See also the pages attached from two history books.
- J. Krige and A. Russo "A History of the European Space Agency 1958 – 1987, Volume 1", 2000
- G. Collins, "Europe in Space ", 1990

Emphasis mine.

My thoughts exactly.

However... only an extinction level event in US-European relationships will IMO be sufficient enough to finally get the governments of the ESA member states to become really serious about (human) spaceflight. Right now, the majority of them are lazy: "we'll just buy a seat from Axiom/SpaceX to fly our astronaut to space" instead of "let's work together as European countries to create our own system for crewed access to space".

[hektor]

One small correction: ESM-4 and ESM-5 are indeed for European crew access to the Lunar orbit / Gateway. However, ESM-6 is (or was?) for the ISS, like ESM-1 to ESM-3.

Another cancellation that impacted ESA and is now largely forgotten: the X-38.

[hektor]

I think that must be the right location for discussions between ESA and other Agencies.

GLEX 2025

[yg1968]

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.

ESA has already spent the money. What they would be losing out on is what they traded the modules for: ESA astronaut flights to the Moon.

To use the ol' Car Analogy: In exchange for the ESA building NASA a car engine, NASA would then put that ESA engine in a NASA car drive ESA astronauts somewhere in that car for free. The ESA purchased parts and build the engine, but now NASA have cancelled the roadtrip using the car in favour of hiring a taxi. But since NASA are no longer getting a car engine from the ESA, why would they offer a free ride to ESA astronauts in the taxi NASA is paying for? The engine the ESA built is useless without NASA, but the ESA has nothing to show for the money they spent building it.


This is also why "just use a commercial option" isn't viable for the ESA: ESA/NASA cooperation has not been on the basis of paying for goods/services, but on barter agreements (e.g. building hardware that NASA then uses, or providing a launch of a NASA satellite in exchange for hosting instruments, etc) without transfer of funds. That's not an option with commercial providers, who operate based on transfer of funds.

You are assuming that ESA will get nothing in exchange for its current and past efforts on Gateway but that is an assumption, nothing on this has been announced or even decided. ESA has signed agreements to go to Gateway but not to the surface of the Moon. The only country to have signed lunar surface agreements is Japan (JAXA). I suspect that the lunar surface agreement with JAXA will continue. A pressurized rover is still useful to NASA.

One of the lessons learned from this experience should be that ESA and other international partners shouldn't cooperate on things that are not useful like Gateway. It's OK to decline participation in useless programs.

Incidentally, it seems that Europe was already trying to be more autonomous with Argonaut and Moonlight. Netheir of these programs are that useful to NASA as they are duplicative of NASA's own efforts but they could continue even if NASA were to cancel the rest of the Artemis program.

One thing that ESA should propose is lunar surface habitats. I suspect that Italy will propose that (there was already discussions with the Italian Space Agency on this) but I am not sure if ESA will be part of it.

[woods170]

<snip>
One of the lessons learned from this experience should be that ESA and other international partners shouldn't cooperate on things that are not useful like Gateway. It's OK to decline participation in useless programs.

The fundamental lesson ESA should learn from this (but as usual they won't) is that ESA should have independent access to space for both crewed and uncrewed spaceflight. Currently this only exists for uncrewed spaceflight.

Without independent crewed access to space, and it own permanent destination in space (basically a European (commercial) space station), Europe HSF will not be going anywhere (including the Moon) anytime soon. Remaining dependent on foreign nations, to put European astronauts in space, is lazy and it's stupid. But that's exactly the behaviour you can expect from a multi-national agency with no central guidance.  What you get are not smart decisions, but ill-informed compromises. Which is why ESA is, fundamentally, still stuck in the same mindset it started out with in the mid-1970s.

[hektor]

Direct and clear objectives to collaborate with ISRO: ESA chief Josef Aschbacher

Collaborations are being keenly considered on India-proposed building of the Bharatiya Antariksha Station (BAS). India plans to build the space station by 2035. In a five-module design, the BAS-1 is scheduled for a launch in 2028.

“Both India and ESA have ambitious space exploration programmes and we would identify areas that will complement and benefit each other. A lot can be done together,” the ESA chief Aschbacher said.

“Our respective teams will discuss and define concrete actions and areas to collaborate,” the ESA chief said.

ESA is considering the utilisation of BAS once it is built and ready. It is also considering providing ISRO with cargo-delivery support in building the BAS.

[yg1968]

Space agencies grapple with potential changes to Artemis:
https://spacenews.com/space-agencies-grapple-with-potential-changes-to-artemis/

[D_Dom]

<snip>
One of the lessons learned from this experience should be that ESA and other international partners shouldn't cooperate on things that are not useful like Gateway. It's OK to decline participation in useless programs.

The fundamental lesson ESA should learn from this (but as usual they won't) is that ESA should have independent access to space for both crewed and uncrewed spaceflight.

Here is my opinion, based on my personal bias obviously. ISS ending in 2030 is an example of a succesful partnership coming to a close. What unmet expectations exist for that multi-decade program?
Agreed that nobody should cooperate in programs that are not useful. Trick as always is to find consensus on varying degrees of usefulness.

Given that I have zero influence on how other countries spend their money I think relying on other countries for the transportation portion allows ESA to focus on areas they consider useful.

 We often use Antarctica as examples of mutual scientific cooperation between countries, how many different modes of transportation are in use? I can think of Maritime and Aeronautic. I have personal experience maintaining a C-130 equipped with skis for the Antarctic support mission. I believe the number of countries with independent transportation capabilities is rather low when compared with numbers participating in useful scientific research.

[hektor]

The leadership of ESA considers the Gateway as useful and justified. That is why they massively invested in it.

That it is not the opinion of this forum is not their problem.

[woods170]

<snip>
One of the lessons learned from this experience should be that ESA and other international partners shouldn't cooperate on things that are not useful like Gateway. It's OK to decline participation in useless programs.

The fundamental lesson ESA should learn from this (but as usual they won't) is that ESA should have independent access to space for both crewed and uncrewed spaceflight.

Here is my opinion, based on my personal bias obviously. ISS ending in 2030 is an example of a succesful partnership coming to a close. What unmet expectations exist for that multi-decade program?
<snip>

Emphasis mine.

Answering your question from the ESA point of view:
1. No Hermes crew exchange missions to the ISS (which were baselined as crewed Hermes missions to space station Freedom - the predecessor to ISS - in 1988)
2. Item 1 resulted in less than half of the projected number of ESA astronauts flying to the space station.
3. The Columbus module was only two-thirds as capable as baselined in 1988, courtesy of the multiple space station redesigns in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
4. Items 2 and 3 combined resulted in only half of the scientific opportunities of what was baselined in 1988.

Summary: ESA not having its own system for crewed access to space severly curtailed the number of ESA astronauts serving on the space station, which resulted directly in a significantly diminished contribution to the science performed on the space station and eventually increased cost to ESA for having to barter with NASA to get ESA astronauts to the space station.

[hektor]

Hermes was not going to Freedom as a primary mission.

Hermes was going to MTFF. Hermes going to Freedom was a kind of secondary mission, not considered as a prime objective and quite unlikely to happen since it required to skip a MTFF mission to perform it.

[yg1968]

The leadership of ESA considers the Gateway as useful and justified. That is why they massively invested in it.

That it is not the opinion of this forum is not their problem.

The U.S. President is proposing to cancel it. So yes it is also their problem. In a limited budget environment, hard choices have to be made but Gateway probably wasn't that hard of a choice.

[hektor]

As a European, I believe that Europe's space policy is not dictated by the U.S. President. If the European Space Agency (ESA) determines that the Gateway project is worthwhile, they can still construct and operate their contribution.