High-Level Advisory Group on Human and Robotic Space Exploration for Europe

[woods170]

Interest grows for human spaceflight in Europe:
https://spacenews.com/interest-grows-for-human-spaceflight-in-europe/

https://twitter.com/SpaceNews_Inc/status/1677400696818204672

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.

[deltaV]

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.

True, the growing interest is in "human spaceflight" not "human spaceflight pork". Who's more interested in ice cream: someone who buys and consumes imported ice cream, or someone who doesn't eat ice cream at all but is looking for a government-funded diary job?

[hfakos]

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.

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.

What we have right now is taxpayer-funded space tourism. Which should stop. If Europe opts for A, let rich Europeans spend their own private wealth to buy seats on American, Russian, Chinese, or soon Indian spacecraft.

I personally think we should go for B. I thought Europe wants to be a player, not a playing field.

[Eric Hedman]

The problem I see for Europe is if they develop a reusable launcher, I think it will match Falcon 9 at best and be more than a generation behind when it starts flying.  Starship and New Glenn will hopefully both be a generation beyond what Falcon 9 can do by the time a reusable European launcher is ready and neither of them are going to sit still and forgo upgrades.  I think Europe simply missed the boat and will be wasting a lot of money trying to catch up.  I think they should focus on areas where they can lead and contract out flights to the commercial US carriers.  They could focus on building Moon base components, or LEO station modules and lead in commercial low cost development of them.  We'd all be farther ahead if they don't spend their budget on a ten or fifteen year journey to match what US companies will be dong in the near future.  Making the next generation of space development one where each player brings its strengths would get us farther quicker.

[woods170]

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.

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>

Ever since development of the HERMES mini space shuttle collapsed in 1992, most of the ESA member states have firmly chosen for option A.
Despite all the calls from the heads of Arianespace and ESA and DLR etc., I have not seen anything that indicates that the responsible ministers are moving over to option B.
What happens at the next ESA ministerial will indicate if ESA member states are once again willing to fund an independent European means to put crew in space.

[daedalus1]

There is only one good business sense in manned spaceflight in my humble opinion, and that is tourism. All other reasons may be important eg. science,  but will always have to be subsidised.

[yg1968]

At 30 minutes of this video, Josef Aschbacher says that it would be great if ESA had the capability to bring crew with a European rocket and capsule to a space station (presumably in LEO) and eventually to the Moon:
https://spacewatch.global/2023/07/our-space-cafe-33-minutes-with-josef-aschbacher-european-space-ambitions-esa-agenda-2025-updates-and-goals/

https://twitter.com/SpaceWatchGL/status/1680261090972672001

[yg1968]

At 37 minutes of the same video, Josef Aschbacher said that he recently meant with a new space company about their interest in providing commercial cargo transportation services to and from space for micro-activity experiments and he added that the company would like ESA to be their anchor customer (his description of this potential program sounded similar to CRS/COTS).

https://spacewatch.global/2023/07/our-space-cafe-33-minutes-with-josef-aschbacher-european-space-ambitions-esa-agenda-2025-updates-and-goals/

[Halken]

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.   

[Zed_Noir]

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.   

Will disagree with you. European Space Agencies knows that they miss the future commercial space business boat with the obsolete Ariane 6 that is running late. There is nothing they can do about it.

So it appears to me they are scaling back their future launch business to minimized their near future investments in launch vehicles and infrastructure. While assessing if they can reenter the future commercial launch market with new development programs.

As I see it. The EU have the resources to developed something to get a portion of the future  commercial launch market. If they put together a fast development plan that don't included the current geo-return policy.

[GWR64]

Just my humble opinion:
If there was any possibility at all,
the turning to the moon, moon village, lunar gateway make independent European human space flight impossible. The cost exceeds the cost in Earth orbit by a factor of ten. With a lower return on possible flights and scientific results.
There will be no political support for these sums, and also no support from the majority of the population in Europe.
Say what you want about the ISS, one thing is certain: it connects people from different countries who would not otherwise work together.
Due to the high costs, this will be much less the case on the moon.

[yg1968]

At 45 minutes of the crew-7 press conference, Frank De Winne notes that ESA is discussing developing its own cargo and crew transportation system to LEO and eventually to the Moon. He mentions that having complementary capability is a strength and helps them to be an even stronger partner for Artemis and the Moon to Mars program:



https://twitter.com/w_robinsonsmith/status/1693741191404122528

[hektor]

European Industry Could Generate €9.9 Billion From Crewed Launch

[yg1968]

Space race 2.0: why Europe is joining the new dash to the moon:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/nov/26/europe-moon-space-race-esa-india-russia-china-japan?CMP=share_btn_tw

[yg1968]

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/1MnxnMoDQZoJO

1- The cargo transportation services program to the ISS and LEO
2- Argonaut (cargo lunar lander)
3- Electrically propulsed vehicles (EP tugs).

Edit: see post below.

[Asteroza]

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/1MnxnMoDQZoJO

1- The cargo transportation services program to the ISS and LEO
2- 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?

[yg1968]

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/1MnxnMoDQZoJO

1- The cargo transportation services program to the ISS and LEO
2- 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?

Thanks! That would make a lot of sense. He mentioned that it would be useful to get to the Moon and Mars and to get back from Mars.

[yg1968]

ESA Explores Crewed Mission Capabilities for Ariane 6 Rocket:
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-explores-crewed-mission-capabilities-for-ariane-6-rocket/

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.”

The article also links this Space News interview with Toni Tolker-Nielsen, ESA director of space transportation:
https://spacenews.com/europe-aims-to-end-space-access-crisis-with-ariane-6s-inaugural-launch/