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…
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
There were other Europeans noting this before.......
But I think it was rare to see these views surfaced during such public ESA meetings? Maybe I'm wrong about that.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A.1 Mandate of the High-Level Advisory GroupAs 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.
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
Quote from: page 25 of the reportEurope 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.
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.
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.
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.
Listen to my immediate reaction of the new report with @BBCAmos👉https://tv.prime-intra.net/tv/cu/2023/03/27/336ca35d1c7bebffcd75ea0cfb1a45d0e3dbacba6fe1ef04a1d2ba105701ae7b943d41fcc3b9f4d9e01b5175100e37dc7910e47b71fd052b2349e1dda67dc4df_1679894694000_1.mp4I want to know YOUR thoughts on #RevolutionSpace. Is this what you, as a European citizen, want for Europe? Comment below.Full report can be found here: https://esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Independent_advisory_group_presents_report_on_European_space_revolution_to_ESA
Extended interview, unfortunately in French, about what ESA intends to do with the conclusions of the GroupL’Europe ne « doit pas tergiverser et doit démarrer ce programme spatial dčs aujourd’hui. Il y a une certaine urgence »
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”.
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.
Let Europe first regain an independent crew launch capability!Humans are evolved to live on earth. Just explore with robotics.In LEO a manned or human tended space station could be useful. But as of now Italy is wasting hundreds of millions, of European funding on Avio.In the 2023 to 2025 period close to a billion Euro is being waisted of Ariane 6 transition and these Avio programs.There goes the funding that could have been used to develop crew launch capability by around 2030.
"It is not possible that in 18 months, in Europe, we argue about what to do and why, and in China they build a space station..."
Bezos puts a billion a year into space without batting an eye, here a miracle is needed for a budget increase of ~700 million
Linked to this discussion:Samantha Cristoforetti is worried about the future of European Space Exploration: "Do we want to be Leader or Passenger?"
Once humans get involved into spaceflight, budgets go into billions before any science can get done. So just be passenger for human spaceflight.
Quote from: lenny97 on 05/12/2023 08:36 amLinked to this discussion:Samantha Cristoforetti is worried about the future of European Space Exploration: "Do we want to be Leader or Passenger?"Rather ironic coming from an astronaut who merrily flew to space TWICE as a passenger.
Entirely Dismissing a *National* crewed spacecraft made in Europe , in a timespan probably not even significantly longer than 15 years, would however be a mistake, especially thanks to general improvements in designing and manufacturing and the growth of the space economy. Said National spacecraft could then have its service sold to the ESA.
Quote from: TheKutKu on 06/21/2023 09:00 amEntirely Dismissing a *National* crewed spacecraft made in Europe , in a timespan probably not even significantly longer than 15 years, would however be a mistake, especially thanks to general improvements in designing and manufacturing and the growth of the space economy. Said National spacecraft could then have its service sold to the ESA.Obviously she wasn't thinking of a national spacecraft of a european country when whe said "we". But can you tell us which european countries are most likely to be the first to develop a national spacecraft?
Quote from: friendly3 on 06/21/2023 12:36 pmQuote from: TheKutKu on 06/21/2023 09:00 amEntirely Dismissing a *National* crewed spacecraft made in Europe , in a timespan probably not even significantly longer than 15 years, would however be a mistake, especially thanks to general improvements in designing and manufacturing and the growth of the space economy. Said National spacecraft could then have its service sold to the ESA.Obviously she wasn't thinking of a national spacecraft of a european country when whe said "we". But can you tell us which european countries are most likely to be the first to develop a national spacecraft?Well Germany seems the more likely place, especially as a Private-led National rather than Public-led National endeavour, but as I said, the lowering bar of entry in established skills, organisations and industrial capability may create surprises. Maybe medium countries like Spain or Sweden could be it! The favourable circumstances that have been historically necessary to the development of Human Spaceflight may even be more likely in smaller countries.
What launcher would a notional "national" spacecraft be launched on? It is not going to be Ariane 6, for all the obvious reasons.
Quote from: TheKutKu on 06/21/2023 01:19 pmQuote from: friendly3 on 06/21/2023 12:36 pmQuote from: TheKutKu on 06/21/2023 09:00 amEntirely Dismissing a *National* crewed spacecraft made in Europe , in a timespan probably not even significantly longer than 15 years, would however be a mistake, especially thanks to general improvements in designing and manufacturing and the growth of the space economy. Said National spacecraft could then have its service sold to the ESA.Obviously she wasn't thinking of a national spacecraft of a european country when whe said "we". But can you tell us which european countries are most likely to be the first to develop a national spacecraft?Well Germany seems the more likely place, especially as a Private-led National rather than Public-led National endeavour, but as I said, the lowering bar of entry in established skills, organisations and industrial capability may create surprises. Maybe medium countries like Spain or Sweden could be it! The favourable circumstances that have been historically necessary to the development of Human Spaceflight may even be more likely in smaller countries.Europe does not have the equivalent of an Elon Musk, let alone the equivalent of a SpaceX. IMO right now, and in the foreseeable future, no European entity, private or public, will be in a position to develop a crewed access-to-space system, without significant input of public money.Remember: even SpaceX required $1.4B in public money support to field Crew Dragon. And they were only able to do so because they had the prior experience of developing Dragon 1. Which retired a LOT of risk and itself was done with a $300M injection of public funds.And that's just for the spacecraft itself. What launcher would a notional "national" spacecraft be launched on? It is not going to be Ariane 6, for all the obvious reasons. So, you're looking at not only developing the spacecraft, but its carrier rocket as well.So, even if Europe had the equivalent of a SpaceX (which it doesn't), the ESA member states or national governments would still have to contribute several billions of Euros to get things going. The last time ESA or national governments were willing to do so was in 1988. And it failed miserably in that it only resulted in a very expensive launcher and no spacecraft while costing twice what the entire package was supposed to cost.Recent technological advances do nothing to change this IMO. Just look at how Ariane 6 development is NOT being helped by those recent technological advances: it is late, it is obsolete and it is also substantially over budget.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/21/2023 01:44 pmWhat launcher would a notional "national" spacecraft be launched on? It is not going to be Ariane 6, for all the obvious reasons.Why not? As far as I can tell practically any launcher can be human rated if the organization who chooses human rating standards wants it to be.
Developing an Ariane 6 replacement will take 10 years. Developing a European crewed spacecraft will also take 10 years. So, by the time the crewed spacecraft is ready, Ariane 6 will be heading for retirement. As such, it makes no sense whatsoever to crew-rate Ariane 6. Instead, the next vehicle (Ariane 7 or whatever it will be called) will be crew-rated for the crewed spacecraft.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/22/2023 09:42 amDeveloping an Ariane 6 replacement will take 10 years. Developing a European crewed spacecraft will also take 10 years. So, by the time the crewed spacecraft is ready, Ariane 6 will be heading for retirement. As such, it makes no sense whatsoever to crew-rate Ariane 6. Instead, the next vehicle (Ariane 7 or whatever it will be called) will be crew-rated for the crewed spacecraft.That just means a decision of developing a crew capsule for:- A vehicle that will have had 10 years of service to get the bugs out and refine performance and operations
- A vehicle that will debut at the same time as the capsule, and will also be on the critical path for that capsule
Or:- A capsule that can be launched on Ariane 6, that has the capability to be launched on a future launcher too once one is availableThe latter option applies some constraints (e.g. capsule mass must be below the lowest of the two prospective launch vehicles) but affords schedule flexibility.
Interest grows for human spaceflight in Europe:https://spacenews.com/interest-grows-for-human-spaceflight-in-europe/https://twitter.com/SpaceNews_Inc/status/1677400696818204672
In other words: this "growing interest for human spaceflight in Europe" does not actually help Europe in getting its own independent means of crewed access to space.
This is not so much interest in building a European solution to get crew to orbit, but interest in making use of an existing American solution to get crew to orbit (Crew Dragon).In other words: this "growing interest for human spaceflight in Europe" does not actually help Europe in getting its own independent means of crewed access to space. In fact, one could make the point that it actually serves to further delay it. Money spent by ESA member states, on 10-day trips to the ISS via SpaceX and Axiom, is money that no longer can be spent on developing a European independent means of crewed access to space.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/08/2023 11:30 amThis is not so much interest in building a European solution to get crew to orbit, but interest in making use of an existing American solution to get crew to orbit (Crew Dragon).In other words: this "growing interest for human spaceflight in Europe" does not actually help Europe in getting its own independent means of crewed access to space. In fact, one could make the point that it actually serves to further delay it. Money spent by ESA member states, on 10-day trips to the ISS via SpaceX and Axiom, is money that no longer can be spent on developing a European independent means of crewed access to space.Agreed. I see two rational options.(A) If Europe believes manned spaceflight is a bad investment with little return, scientific or otherwise, it should not spend a single cent on it.(B) Conversely, if Europe believes manned spaceflight is important for whatever reason, it should develop its own independent crewed infrastructure.<snip>
Please tell me if I am wrong, but when I look at what the European space agencies are saying, they have little clue about the seriousness of the situation for the commercial outlook for Ariane 6 and the launch market in general and EUs role in it.We have moved from space being a strength for the EU and a commercial success, to again becoming dependent on others for access to space, for human access to space, and for access to the moon. Despite that we with the launch site close the Equator has an advantage.We are aimed at becoming indifferent and they don't get it. That Titanic feeling is creeping in.
At 30 minutes of this video, there is discussion of programs that will enable ESA to access orbital and lunar markets. Three programs are mentioned as being helpful in that respect:https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1MnxnMoDQZoJO1- The cargo transportation services program to the ISS and LEO2- Argonaut (cargo lunar lander)3- Electrically propulsed vehicles (EPTux?). I am not familiar with that program; it sounded like EPTux but I may not have heard the name of the program properly. Does anyone know the exact name of program?
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/14/2023 01:55 pmAt 30 minutes of this video, there is discussion of programs that will enable ESA to access orbital and lunar markets. Three programs are mentioned as being helpful in that respect:https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1MnxnMoDQZoJO1- The cargo transportation services program to the ISS and LEO2- Argonaut (cargo lunar lander)3- Electrically propulsed vehicles (EPTux?). I am not familiar with that program; it sounded like EPTux but I may not have heard the name of the program properly. Does anyone know the exact name of program?Tux = Tugs?
When asked if Ariane 6 could be adapted for human spaceflight, Sion said, “If there is a need, it is something which is possible. A significant part of the additional safety comes from the capsule.”Despite appearing to be in the best position to deliver on a crew capacity, ESA is not yet committed to Ariane 6. In the SpaceNews interview, Tolker-Nielsen concluded that “ESA would not favour any particular launch; it would ask industry to come up with proposals.”
