Author Topic: High-Level Advisory Group on Human and Robotic Space Exploration for Europe  (Read 19448 times)

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 55

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49113
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82998
  • Likes Given: 37295
Report is attached.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1638885958040043523

Quote
The ongoing ESA Council meeting is presenting this report by an advisory group calling for "a European Commercial LEO Station, Cargo and Crew Capabilities for the Gateway and the Moon, and sustained presence on the lunar surface."

esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/corporate…

Quote
Cedric O, former French Secretary of State for the Digital Sector who served on the advisory group: I'm not certain there will be a future revolution in space, but the Americans and Chinese are betting on it; huge problem if Europe is not part of it.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1638890672450314241

Quote
He notes the drop in Europe's share of the commercial launch market from ~50% a decade ago to "almost out of the market" today is not because the US is spending more money, but because of emergence of more efficient players, like SpaceX.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49113
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82998
  • Likes Given: 37295
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1638884882528223234

Quote
A high-level advisory group in Europe says the continent should not only develop its own human spaceflight system, but also study the possibility of an "independent" European human landing on the Moon within 10 years.

esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/corporate…

Quote
I love the ambition, but here's a reality check. It took ESA and Ariane a decade to develop Ariane 6, which was an upgraded version of the Ariane 5 rocket. The continent needs much more urgency, and a tripling of ESA's budget, to land on the Moon, on its own, in the 2030s.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1638886421418381312

Quote
The high-level group is correct, however, that in order to compete in space in the 2020s and beyond ESA must act differently. Will this be politically possible? I don't know.

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 55
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 12:27 pm by hektor »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49113
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82998
  • Likes Given: 37295
twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1638890672450314241

Quote
He notes the drop in Europe's share of the commercial launch market from ~50% a decade ago to "almost out of the market" today is not because the US is spending more money, but because of emergence of more efficient players, like SpaceX.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1638893111693946880

Quote
Exactly. It's nice to finally see someone in Europe acknowledging reality rather than complaining about "huge subsidies" for SpaceX. If you want to compete in launch today you need to empower commercial entrepreneurs, not shove more money toward Ariane.

Quote
There were other Europeans noting this before.......

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1638894189554593793

Quote
But I think it was rare to see these views surfaced during such public ESA meetings? Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 55
The advantage is that when you are an outside expert like Cedric O with not any official function, you can be more candid.

This changes from the usual speech from Arianespace about the ugly subsidised SpaceX
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 12:38 pm by hektor »

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 55

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3085
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 04:11 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3085
Quote from: Josef Aschbacher
We had another very dense Council yesterday and today, with many constructive discussions and important proposals and decision-making. New and/or moving Directors, ESA transformation, agreement signatures, new HQ!😅

Get the recap below👇
https://esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2023/03/Media_information_session_from_ESA_s_315th_Council

https://twitter.com/AschbacherJosef/status/1638948828845064194
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 04:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline geza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Budapest
    • Géza Meszéna's web page
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 73
I am shocked by the emptiness of this grandstanding. As a European space fan, certainly I wish to see a more agile European space program. However, goals like "human Moon landing in 10 years" went out of fashion around half a century ago. This would be the revolutionary goal for Europe to lead? Is it the European goal to "independently" replicate the earlier Chinese success in replicating the Soviet success decades before to reach orbit with a space capsule?

Is it a goal for European launch industry to regain cost competitiveness? It would be a pretty difficult goal. But they mention no such thing. It this is note a European goal, then "independent" access will be simply disadvantaged access. Maybe, a better attitude would be to accept that space access will be available on the cheap and concentrate on utilization of this service.

Developing large constellations of space telescopes? European base on Mars, achievements of which goes beyond the mere existence?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3085
The competitiveness of ESA’s Geo-return policy:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/competitiveness-esas-geo-return-policy-josef-aschbacher/

Quote from: Josef Aschbacher
To enhance compatibility between geo-return and competition, the policy of geo-return should increasingly shift towards a ‘fair contribution’ principle, that is to adjust the contribution of each Member State according to the outcome of the industrial competitions and to the actual share gained by its industry in these competitions. Several ESA programmes, especially in close-to-market sectors such as telecommunications, are already built in this manner.

Aschbacher specifically mentioned his recent article during the press conference. The idea of applying competition (e.g., by using public-private partnerships) for human space exploration is very interesting.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2023 01:51 am by yg1968 »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2888
  • Liked: 1107
  • Likes Given: 33
So, um, how real is this?

Saying LEO space industry is a EU strategic need now is good but, it feels like fear of missing out (FOMO)


It's almost saying x-prize or commercial cargo/crew/station open contracting.  But is ESA really willing to back that? They would have to openly declare a commercial station spec (or more accurately a EU/ESA module hosting spec since commercial providers would build the base hosting station), plus cargo upmass/downmass spec with late load, plus astronaut rotation spec. Adding an RLV requirement will force some innovation and/or merging of commercial startups.

They would also have to dual provider everything to/in LEO, with both providers preferentially EU based. Beyond LEO might be single provider.

So at a minimum, this smells like slapping Arianespace down a level while pulling up Avio to have the fig leaf of two primary providers, and thus anoint two official EU commercial space providers. All the light/medium rocket people will have to fight for table scraps. Plus where does that leave EHLL and Argonaut? Are they going to treat a european moon landing the same way as HLS?


One way to go about it is to unilaterally declare an equatorial LEO EU strategic propellant reserve need. That needs at least two depots, and you can accrete a man tended station onto one and a fulltime manned station onto the other. Tweaking the mass specs for some ESA modules (say crew accommodation) to be attached to the depots to require a Starship scale RLV forces everyone to up their game for EHLL, but still leaves medium lift a market for delivering small unit payloads that can work as commercial modules, plus astronaut delivery. With EHLL class RLV providers and a propellant depot, supporting EU moon landings is comparatively easier (and comparatively easy to drop as an overbudget prestige program while leaving a stable LEO industrial foundation for commercial work).

There's also another path, if you assume EU alone can't support dual commercial providers. EU is not the only group feeling FOMO. With ISS partners feeling like tag alongs on Artemis and getting functionally ejected from ISS as 2030 approaches, there is a stage being set for the EU and Japan. They may feel individually they can't support multiple providers to properly incubate a commercial space industry. Getting ESA and JAXA to jointly commit to a strategic propellant reserve could split the difference, with each partner committing to supply one domestic commercial provider of the same spec at least, thus resulting in at a minimum 2 providers. This assumes two medium-ish commercial providers (A6 and H3) in the short term, Avio possibly competeing from the EU side, and assorted startups, while long term at least one EHLL class RLV. EHLL ostensibly is being pursued for two reasons, having a EU "Le Starship", and SPS building. Both ESA and JAXA have declared SPS research.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3085
Some of the highlights of the Revolution Space report:

Quote from: page 10 of the Report
With the need for immediate action in mind, the question is not who is next to put their boots on the Moon, but rather who will sustain a long-term presence.

Quote from: page 14 of the report
For the future, we can foresee for example a European commercial crew capsule with a European astronaut as commander, and astronauts from Latin America, Asia and Africa onboard. This is the “European spirit” in space exploration as a strong partner open to the world.

Quote from: pages 23 and 24 of the report
Rather than designing, developing and operating space infrastructure a commercially-oriented procurement policy needs to be adopted: The public sector, through space agencies like ESA, shall define the requirements for large-scale infrastructure or missions, for example, a crew capsule, and encourage the private sector to propose the most innovative and cost-efficient solution. The public agency will be an anchor customer buying a service or product. In parallel, it will also develop technology building blocks to enable private companies to mature technologies needed to fulfil the services.

The long-term commitment by public agencies is crucial for the private sector to attract funding. The US Commercial Crew Program as well as the Commercial Cargo Program are examples that have developed a successful commercial industry.

Quote from: page 25 of the report
Europe needs to deeply transform its processes by building a framework that kindles real competition between European companies, and aggressively fosters the emergence of new actors. It is impossible to overlook that the major game-changer in space over the past few decades has been the emergence of new companies with often aggressive business models, such as those employed by SpaceX. They have completely reset the competition, and distorted market forces, largely thanks to a new procurement policy by NASA and the US Department of Defense, creating both a demand pull and a strong and competitive supply.

To be able to get back in the exploration race, Europe must overhaul its approach and processes, otherwise, a reinforced ambition is unlikely to be deliverable. Such transformation must include private sector co-investment, new innovative financing structures, institutional challenge-based or service-based procurement, alleviating procurement constraints, and optimization of public-private financing models to stimulate private investment and industrial competitiveness. This has to be matched with sustained support to education providers, research and technology institutes and ensuring ESA’s own transformation.

Quote from: page 30 of the report
While recognising the importance of collaborating with like-minded countries, Europe should strengthen its role by (i) revitalising multilateral efforts in space governance, (ii) playing a leading role in space law development to ensure a rule-based order in space, and (iii) pursuing a new ethic for explored frontiers to avoid repeating Earth-bound patterns.

Quote from: page 31 of the report
Europe should design and implement a European Space Mission to establish an independent European presence in Earth orbit, lunar orbit, on the Moon, and beyond, including a European Commercial LEO Station, Cargo and Crew Capabilities for the Gateway and the Moon, and sustained presence on the lunar surface.

Quote from: page 33 of the report
Europe should pursue symbiotic public private partnerships by embracing a culture of risk and reward-sharing, further lowering the cost of the entry ticket, reducing bureaucracy and fostering new sources of investment.

Quote from: page 35 of the report
As part of the European Space Mission, we are calling upon ESA to prepare for the 2023 Space Summit: [...]

-A scenario for independent and sustainable European human landing on the Moon within 10 years.

Quote from: page 36 of the report
A.1 Mandate of the High-Level Advisory Group

As provided in the Terms of Reference - ESA/C(2022)110 Annex 1, the Group’s mandate is to provide the Member States with an independent and objective high-level assessment regarding the (i) (geo)political, (ii) economic and (iii) societal relevance of human and robotic space exploration for Europe and recommended options for a way forward.

https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/corporate/h-lag_brochure.pdf

P.S. Interestingly, the High-Level Advisory Group spoke to Scott Pace (see page 38 of the Report).
« Last Edit: 07/15/2023 07:35 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3085

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12131
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18312
  • Likes Given: 12298
The advantage is that when you are an outside expert like Cedric O with not any official function, you can be more candid.

This changes from the usual speech from Arianespace about the ugly subsidised SpaceX

To his credit: the Arianespace boss stopped using the fake "subsidies" argument in 2021, when he finally admitted that Arianespace, CNES and ESA had dropped the ball back in 2014.

But here's the thing: beyond admitting that they made a crucial mistake in 2014, Arianespace is not doing all that much to correct it. Like they have done in the previous 45 years, they expect ESA to come up with the money to change things. Very much old-space way of doing things: sucking the governments teats.  And that doesn't bode well for the long-term future of Arianespace IMO.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3085
A discussion about the impact of the High-Level Advisory Group's recommendations on Artemis can be found here (it starts with the post that I am linking and continues in the posts below it):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58212.msg2469018#msg2469018


Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 2478
Quote from: page 25 of the report
Europe needs to deeply transform its processes by building a framework that kindles real competition between European companies, and aggressively fosters the emergence of new actors.

That's great advice but will European policy makers follow it? I expect they won't, other than throwing some pocket change at competing micro launchers that are pretty useless due to there not being much of a market for launchers of that size.

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • Liked: 1219
  • Likes Given: 55
Extended interview, unfortunately in French, about what ESA intends to do with the conclusions of the Group

L’Europe ne « doit pas tergiverser et doit démarrer ce programme spatial dès aujourd’hui. Il y a une certaine urgence »

Quote
During this Council, a second confidential report was presented and will not be made public. It details what “European industry would be able to do in a very short time. We can do cargo [to LEO] with Ariane 64 from 2028, and certainly human spaceflight afterwards”. The idea is to use "Ariane 6 for cargo and manned flights in LEO then, in a second step, to the Gateway and then towards the lunar surface". At the beginning of April, the ESA will also "launch a call for ideas for in-depth studies of "end-to-end" architecture in LEO and lunar systems". It should be noted that, if the priority is the Moon, ESA will obviously also "carry out manned missions to 'post-ISS' private space stations around the Earth with the participation of European industry, during the next decade", would like to point out Didier Schmitt.

Quote
Unsurprisingly, the use of Ariane 6 brings some constraints mainly in terms of payload capacity. In its version with 4 boosters, the European launcher can send up to 25 tonnes into low orbit and 10 tonnes into trans-lunar orbit like the European lander Argonaut (EL3). ESA recommends a "cargo capable of carrying up to 4 or 5 tonnes of freight with the capacity to return 2 to 3 tonnes of equipment of all kinds to Earth". For lunar missions, ESA is aiming for “10-tonne vehicles capable of bringing back lunar samples from the Gateway. Another vehicle and its "tug" would be used to bring down our astronauts to the lunar surface from the Gateway.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2023 10:59 am by hektor »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3085

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3085
Extended interview, unfortunately in French, about what ESA intends to do with the conclusions of the Group

L’Europe ne « doit pas tergiverser et doit démarrer ce programme spatial dès aujourd’hui. Il y a une certaine urgence »

From the same article:

Quote from: Futura
The primary objective is the low orbit before the Moon

“Beyond Earth orbit, the objective is indeed the lunar surface”, affirms Didier Schmitt who, adding that “we are going to make proposals for options to the Member States in the coming months. The final decision will be made at the political level, the next deadline for which is the space summit in Seville on November 6 and 7”. To fund this program, which is not part of ESA's mandatory activities (space science programs and general budget), the necessary budget will therefore have to follow “through political awareness. First the objective, then the budget; it is indeed a question of new budgets and not of arbitration with other space sectors”.

Google translate version of the article:
https://www-futura--sciences-com.translate.goog/sciences/actualites/vols-habites-europe-ne-doit-pas-tergiverser-doit-demarrer-ce-programme-spatial-aujourdhui-il-y-certaine-urgence-104232/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true
« Last Edit: 03/27/2023 01:52 pm by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0