ESA Q&A

• ESA Q&A by Chris Bergin on 03 Sep, 2007 15:27
• A thread to allow questions about ESA, how it's funded, what it does, and its viability for funding by partner nations.
  
  To kick this off:
  
  I've been arguing that the UK would not be paying $400m a year if we weren't part of the EU. Not specific to being in the EU, not because it's written into EU law, but that it is related. (Open to being proven wrong).
  
  As an Englishman, I also find ESA is 'off the radar' with the UK public, compared to the media NASA gets, for example. Some of this is related to "not knowing what ESA does, or what benefits we get out of ESA bar the occasional small flag on ESA hardware".
  
  This is an opportunity for such answers to be given.
• #1 by sammie on 03 Sep, 2007 16:50
• I'll add a number if points for the discussion. With a yearly budget of $400m how much publicity do you think you'll get. The MoD is going to invest close to 11bln Pounds in new aircraft carriers and it barely made the headlines overhere in Scotland. Then there is the more fundemental issue, should the government spend money to grab headlines and win over voters, or should it spend it's money for the common good, in this case remaining at that the cutting edge of research and industry? If not enough people know about's Britain's involvement in ESA or space in general, is that because of ESA or Britain?
  
  About the connection between ESA and the EU. There are links between the two organizations, as they cooperate on certain projects. However, ESA is not the EU Space Agency or something like that. ESA is intergovernmental body, thus a body created by an agreement between it's members. Whereas the EU has supra-national elements in it, a different sort of organization all together.
  
  ESA works with a re-investment agreement, which means that every penny invested in ESA should be re-invested in it's members. They way this works in practice I'm not sure. I would have to go through a couple of year reports and such to come up with the actual data on the division of work and the tender process. However the lack of shiny ESA facilities doesn't mean that UK Money is being used to keep French engineers occupied (and lets face it, that's the UK's main worry).
• #2 by Jonesy STS on 03 Sep, 2007 18:08
• I'm with Chris on this. What do we get out of ESA? It does seem like a European handshake to appease other EU related negotiations, of which the UK is always the odd one out.
• #3 by meiza on 03 Sep, 2007 18:58
• Every country feels that it's not listened to in EU negotiations and lawmaking.
• #4 by UK Shuttle Clan on 03 Sep, 2007 19:03
• Quote

  sammie - 3/9/2007  11:50 AM
  
  The MoD is going to invest close to 11bln Pounds in new aircraft carriers and it barely made the headlines overhere in Scotland.

  
  Those are uber cool Aircraft carriers, totally state of the art. Shows what we could do with some money and a space program. So question is, why not, why is the UK buying into ESA?
• #5 by Michael Z Freeman on 03 Sep, 2007 19:23

• Quote

  sammie - 3/9/2007  5:50 PM  With a yearly budget of $400m how much publicity do you think you'll get. The MoD is going to invest close to 11bln Pounds in new aircraft carriers and it barely made the headlines overhere in Scotland. Then there is the more fundemental issue, should the government spend money to grab headlines and win over voters, or should it spend it's money for the common good, in this case remaining at that the cutting edge of research and industry?

  Good point, but I think there is a fundamental difference there. Britain has been building ships since the first craft that launched onto the waters. Space flight, especially human space flight is an endeavour that has only just started happening in the last few decades, for the first time in our entire evolution. I think there should, at least, be an initiative to make sure people are properly informed of that. After all it is the hundreds of years of graft and government business that has got us to the Age of Space in the first place. Of course there are many concerns on Terra firma, many of them often more important than our fledgling space technologies. But you can't put the space missions in the same boat, so to speak.

  To address what Chris Bergin has said above, I don't think we (the UK) are deferred to NASA or America in general. As we all know, the character of the US is louder, more competitive and with people more likely to sound off about achievements. The UK is more modest with space research, happily carrying on in various academic institutions. Although, think of Beagle. We seemed to hear a lot about Colin Pillinger for some time and then things moved onto other issues. Is it just a question of differences in style ?

  I'd like to see a clear run down of what projects we are involved in though with the ESA.

  DJ Barney
  
• #6 by pierre on 03 Sep, 2007 20:34
• Quote

  Jonesy STS - 3/9/2007  8:08 PM
  
  What do we get out of ESA?

  
  You get the same thing that other ESA states get: money invested in high tech British industries, people (engineers and scientists) and patents.
  
  You simply get much less of this than France, Italy and Germany because, well, your contribution to the budget is so small (8.59% in 2005 according to Wikipedia).
  
  I live in Turin (Italy) and here the impact of ESA and ASI (the Italian Space Agency) is very noticeable: there is a number of space-related companies and a lot of money and highly qualified jobs involved (here were built all the MPLMs, Columbus, Node 2 and 3, the "manned" parts of the ATVs, Cupola, contributions to Vega and all the Ariane launchers, from 1 to 5, the IXV demonstrator and a very long list of satellites and robotic spacecrafts including contributions to high-visibility ones such as Rosetta, BepiColombo, Mars and Venus Express, Integral, Envisat and Cassini only to mention a few).
  
  So, there is a lot to gain from heavy investments in space and it's not at all a zero-sum game: ESA reinvests here the money that Italy pays to ESA, but with the expertise acquired we have been able to build and sell to NASA the three MPLMs, Harmony and Node 3.
  
  And it's not something limited to the big guys: personally I'm more-or-less an independent contractor for developing software for a small suborbital astronomy mission (no details, sorry). It's a very small thing but I hope that it will be useful to reduce a bit development time and costs for this mission and for similar ones in the future.
  
  And if highly qualified jobs and new technologies aren't enough for you, remember the (arguably) most important thing that we all get from this: knowledge about our planet, solar system and universe. In the end that's what makes us humans: our curiosity.
• #7 by Chris Bergin on 03 Sep, 2007 21:20
• Very good responses so far! This is what we need (especially UK users who don't get to know about these things, myself included).
  
  Question: Do we know the specific benefits to UK companies for the $400m we put in? I've asked BAE and Astrium UK members today and they said "nothing."
  
  Question: If the UK changed it's space policy, sticking with ESA, but increasing its contribution to say (pretend) $2 billion a year, what could this mean for the UK? Could we follow the model of Italy, which is ESA, but has an active role as an Italian program, with Vega, IXV and astronauts.
  
  Basically, it's pros and cons for ESA vs. UK program, or combination.
  
• #8 by meiza on 03 Sep, 2007 22:59
• There are programs with ESA that you can join or stay out of. For example my country is not participating in the ESA human spaceflight program. ESA has 17 members. 9 of those plus Canada are in the Aurora programme which aims to beyond LEO human spaceflight in the long term but has stuff like Mars surface probes for now.
  
  I think ESA could do a lot better job in disseminating information about what new stuff happens, and the media should follow better too. There's lots of stuff going on like Corot, and there are things in the recent past like Huygens (must be in the top ten most awesome missions of the decade at least).
• #9 by sammie on 03 Sep, 2007 23:05
• From the top of my head there is Surrey that has received the contract to build 2 Galileo test satellites (GIOVE A & GIOVE A2). Galileo is one of the few programmes where the EU and ESA actually do cooperate. Surrey Satellites also received a number of other small ESA contracts, such as small GEO study.
  
  But lets take this from the top (I had planned to write some sort of article on this, but Im swamped with my thesis now)
  
  BNSC Funding
  In the year 2005/2006, BNSC's partners spent £207 million on space programmes - about 65% of which was the UK's contribution to European Space Agency.
  ESA Funding
  All Member States* contribute to these programmes on a scale based on their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The other programmes, known as ‘optional’, are only of interest to some Member States, who are free to decide on their level of involvement.
  
  * please note, member states from ESA, not EU!
  
  From the first source, the BNSC (British National Space Centre), spend roughly 200mln Pound Sterling on space. 65% of this goes to ESA, which is about 195mln Euro per annum (unless there are seperate sources of UK Funds to ESA, that goes outside the BNSC Budget). I can't, at this point of time, explain the different between the $400mln earlier quoted.
  
  So lets bring in Wiki; as shown earlier, all Member States have pay a mandatory share, based on GDP. The UK is paying 16,93% of 667mln Euro (113mln Euro). They also contribute 5.91% to the optional programmes, which is 110mln Euro. Total contribution according to wiki is 223mln Euro. Which approaches the figue provided by the BNSC, the $400mln figure earlier quoted seems a bit over the top, unless the exchange rate has gone down a lot lately.
  
  I believe that each penny invested in the optional programmes has to be re-invested in the participating Members. Thus a country can join a project, like the UK joined ESA projects such as Cassini-Huygens, Envisat and Galileo. The larger your share in each project, the larger your return on it will be. The mandatory share of the funds the UK puts into ESA is being used for the Agency’s basic activities (studies on future projects, technology research, shared technical investments, information systems and training programmes). Any increase in the UK spending on ESA will give a 100% return of money, because only the optional share will increase, not the mandatory share...
  
  Additional info on the UK Projects: from here
  At the ESA Ministerial in December 2005, the UK subscribed to the following optional programmes: Aurora, the Earth Observation Envelope Programme-3, Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) phase 1, and Advanced Research in Telecommunications Systems (ARTES).
  
  and
  
  ESA operates a system of "Juste Retour" which, put simply, is that members of programmes can expect to receive back in industrial contracts an amount roughly equivalent to its contributions, less overheads.
  
  For info on the results you can check this page, EADS Astrium is included in one of the Case Studies, it seems they received a 7mln grant, which enabled them to develop hardware which became quite successful. More [/url=http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/content.aspx?nid=5913]here[/url]
• #10 by pippin on 04 Sep, 2007 09:36
• 400mil$ fits neatly with 207mil£
• #11 by Spiff on 04 Sep, 2007 09:43
• I have rarely, if ever, mingled in the several discussions on this forum about the NASA budgets and how it should be spent. This because I feel that since it is not my money (not being a US taxpayer) I do not have the right to tell any American how to spend their money. Thank you therefore Chris for this thread which seems to get some discussion going about the ESA budget. However, it's a Q&A thread, so I'll try to keep this in that style. There's always room left for discussion, and currently I don't know enough about it anyway to entitle myself to an opinion.

   So, questions.

  Does anyone have any information about how the ESA budget is/has been built up between the several memberstates? Can it be found in ESA yearly reports, and if so, where can they be found?

  Same question about how this budget is subsequently spent between memberstates?

  The EU (Yes I know, that is not ESA) has become almost twice as big in the past 4 years with a lot of eastern european countries joining. Are they (planning to be) members of ESA as well? If so, how much will that increase ESA budget and what opportunities will that bring?

  Well, that's quite a bit of questions as a start. And they're probably not all that easy to answer. Personally I don't even know how much my own country (the Netherlands) contributes to ESA budget and to which programs it contributes. We do have THE most state of the art research facility here, (ESTEC) and, considering the previous 'penny for penny' strategy I suppose that means that we also supply quite a bit of budget. But I honestly don't know.

  Spiff

  edit: somehow my layout is being nasty today. Sorry if it looks bad... :S

   

• #12 by 02hurnella on 04 Sep, 2007 10:03
• Take a look at the ESA's page on wikipedia. Here, it shows budget and what countries are involved
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency
  
  The ESA is a bit smaller than the EU. It doesn't include lots of eastern nations. However it does have Norway and switzerland, which aren't in the EU. They are very careful to balance contributions with benefits. Until recently it was felt that the UK was getting too much back. (we are the leading nation on EXOmars. I really hope it works!
  
  
• #13 by sammie on 04 Sep, 2007 11:52
• Quote

  400mil$ fits neatly with 207mil£

  But not all of those 207mln pounds get spend on ESA, 65% does. Which is $270mln per annum
  
• #14 by Felix on 04 Sep, 2007 17:28

• "The UK space industry employs approximately 16,200 staff and generated a turnover of £4.8 billion in 2004/05, an 8% rise on 2003/04. The downstream sector dominates the industry with a turnover of £4.1 billion, while the upstream sector has increased to £723m." (source )
   

  List of space companies in the UK
  http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/content.aspx?nid=5913

  Size and Health of the UK Space Industry 2006
  http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/content.aspx?nid=6007

  UK Space Activities 2007
  Space Activities is the British National Space Centre’s annual report. It lays out what the UK has achieved in the past 12 months and what is planned for the coming year.
  http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/content.aspx?nid=7077

  
  more news and publications about UK in space
  http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/default.aspx?nid=6987

• #15 by David BAE on 04 Sep, 2007 17:39
• ESA's benefit to UK space industry is minimul at best. Oh for the days of British Aerospace and the options we could have taken forward, before the old Conservative government changed all that.
• #16 by Michael Z Freeman on 04 Sep, 2007 21:30

• Q. Are there any plans for the ESA, or any member states of the ESA, to broadcast something like NASA TV on the web ? There is already some kind of satellite broadcast which I hav'nt seen, although it can be downloaded . ESA also do audio and video Podcasts .

  Q. What training and career issues should I be considering for working in the ESA ? Another language apart from my English ? Are they only looking for Scientists and technicians ?

• #17 by CentEur on 05 Sep, 2007 07:15
• Quote

  Spiff - 4/9/2007  11:43 AM
  
  The EU (Yes I know, that is not ESA) has become almost twice as big in the past 4 years with a lot of eastern european countries joining. Are they (planning to be) members of ESA as well? If so, how much will that increase ESA budget and what opportunities will that bring?

  
  We (Czech Rep. Hungary, Poland and Romania) are on the road to full membership, currently engaged through 5-year PECS (Plan for European Cooperating State). I wouldn't expect noticeable changes even with full membership. We're simply too poor today. Also the level of interest in space is very low (in Poland). Hope it gets better once EuroSoyuz starts flying.  
• #18 by pippin on 05 Sep, 2007 07:41
• Quote

  sammie - 4/9/2007  1:52 PM
  
  

  Quote

  400mil$ fits neatly with 207mil£

  But not all of those 207mln pounds get spend on ESA, 65% does. Which is $270mln per annum
  

  
  I understand. But I don't know what Chris' source for the 400mil.$ figure was. If it turns out to be British press....
  Sounds like one of those "simplifications" to me. "What was the space budget? Aren't we doing just ESA stuff? So that's 400mil.$ for ESA"
• #19 by Spiff on 05 Sep, 2007 09:14
• O2hurnella and Centeur. Thanks for your answers. I'm happy to see that the new EU memberstates are also trying to get involved, even if it is a slow process.
  
  Also, good overview of the different budgets in different countries. (Even if it's Wikipedia, and therefore most likely not 100% checked)
  I was surprised to see that the UK is actually one of the larger contributors.
  
  Another question. The budgets are divided in mandatory and optional contribution. I can understand the optional part where each country decides which projects it wishes to support and probably gets there contribution back reasonably well in the form of the money flowing back in local industry. (If not, the responsible politicians will probably not contribute.) However, I don't understand how the mandatory contribution is built up. There are obvious differences in contribution between big and small countries, but how is this decided? It is 'mandatory' which implies that the country has only limited influence over the money it 'must' pay to ESA. In this, the UK is the second largest contributor (more than France!) so I can understand the british wanting to see something back for their money.
• #20 by mr.columbus on 05 Sep, 2007 09:45
• Quote

  Spiff - 5/9/2007  5:14 AM
  
  Also, good overview of the different budgets in different countries. (Even if it's Wikipedia, and therefore most likely not 100% checked)
  I was surprised to see that the UK is actually one of the larger contributors.
  
  

  
  The information on Wiki is copied out of the ESA annual report 2005 which is also linked from the Wiki ESA page. The annual reports of ESA can be downloaded from here: http://www.esa.int/esapub/pi/annualsPI.htm In there you
  
  The last chapter of each annual report provides a rather good overview on the budget and financials of ESA.
  
  On the UK's contribution, as mentioned above, the mandatory participation (that is general administration etc.) is based on the specific countries economic power. Therefore the UK is a large contributor to the mandatory program. Unfortunately in relation to its mandatory particiaption share, the UK is the ESA member with the lowest participation level in the optional programs.
• #21 by mr.columbus on 05 Sep, 2007 10:08
• Quote

  Spiff - 5/9/2007  5:14 AM
  
  Another question. The budgets are divided in mandatory and optional contribution. I can understand the optional part where each country decides which projects it wishes to support and probably gets there contribution back reasonably well in the form of the money flowing back in local industry. (If not, the responsible politicians will probably not contribute.) However, I don't understand how the mandatory contribution is built up. There are obvious differences in contribution between big and small countries, but how is this decided? It is 'mandatory' which implies that the country has only limited influence over the money it 'must' pay to ESA. In this, the UK is the second largest contributor (more than France!) so I can understand the british wanting to see something back for their money.

  
  As stated above, the mandatory contribution is based on a member's total GDP (from ESA's 2006 annual report: ''The ESA Mandatory Activities (which include the General Budget, the Associated General Budget and the Science Programme) are financed by Member State and
  Cooperating State contributions. The ESA Convention dictates that the Agency’s Mandatory Programme be financed using a contribution scale based on the national incomes of the Member States over the last three years for which statistics are available. The ESA Council adopted a new scale for the period 2006-2008 in October 2005.'')
  
  ESA tries to reinvest back each memberstate's total contribution (that is mandatory and optional payments combined) by allocating a similar percentage of contract awards to the space industry of the relevant memberstate. In 2006, ESA's annual report states an industry contract award percentage of 9.7% to the UK of the total 1738 Mio. EURs awarded that year. (see page 72 of the 2006 annual report - http://www.esa.int/esapub/annuals/annual06/ESA_AR2006.pdf (8mb file)) That compares favorably to the UK's total contribution to ESA of about 8.5% in 2005 and about 9% in 2006.
  
  The rest of the money spent is not used for space industry contracts, rather on ESA's staff (about 350 million EUR in 2006), on maintaining its facilities (buildings etc.) (300 million EUR in 2006) and other capex and running expenses and "in-house" science. The UK benefits from these general money spending requirements in that 178 FTE of ESA were located in the UK (of 1905 employees in total) which again is about the share of UK's ESA contribution.
• #22 by Spiff on 06 Sep, 2007 14:50
• Great answers Mr. Columbus. That's going to be reading material.
• #23 by tnphysics on 27 Sep, 2007 00:16
• Why was a storable propellant EPS built, instead of starting with the ECA?
  
  And why doesn't the ECA increase the payload to LEO?
• #24 by mr.columbus on 27 Sep, 2007 07:05
• Quote

  tnphysics - 26/9/2007  8:16 PM
  
  And why doesn't the ECA increase the payload to LEO?

  
  Neither the Ariane 5 G nor the Ariane 5 ECA deliver payloads to LEO. They are designed for launches to GTO. Ariane 5 ES ATV which is designed to launch payloads to LEO uses both Ariane 5 G+ and Ariane 5 ECA components - from ECA the ES ATV uses e.g. the enhancements to the EAP (10% more performance) and the Vulcain 2 main stage. So in theory one could say that a launcher modified for LEO launches based on the Ariane 5 G has less payload capacity than one modified based on the Ariane 5 ECA.
• #25 by Michael Z Freeman on 27 Sep, 2007 11:02
• Will the ESA be using the ISS as a "staging point" in missions that are part of the Global Exploration Strategy ?
  
  DJ Barney
• #26 by Michael Z Freeman on 27 Sep, 2007 11:04
• Will the ESA be launching missions to the ISS and funding it, even though NASA have withdrawn funding after 2015 and are still docking Orion with it ?
  
  DJ Barney
• #27 by Jim on 27 Sep, 2007 11:26
• Quote

  DJ Barney - 27/9/2007  7:04 AM
  
  Will the ESA be launching missions to the ISS and funding it, even though NASA have withdrawn funding after 2015 and are still docking Orion with it ?
  
  DJ Barney

  
  When the US withdrawals, the ISS will end. It can't be sustained without the US
• #28 by joh on 27 Sep, 2007 12:27
• Quote

  mr.columbus - 27/9/2007  2:05 AM
  
  Neither the Ariane 5 G nor the Ariane 5 ECA deliver payloads to LEO. They are designed for launches to GTO. Ariane 5 ES ATV which is designed to launch payloads to LEO uses both Ariane 5 G+ and Ariane 5 ECA components - from ECA the ES ATV uses e.g. the enhancements to the EAP (10% more performance) and the Vulcain 2 main stage. So in theory one could say that a launcher modified for LEO launches based on the Ariane 5 G has less payload capacity than one modified based on the Ariane 5 ECA.

  
  Sorry, but that's wrong. The Ariane 5 was designed for putting Hermes (the european spaceplane) to LEO, using no upper stage. The EPS was built as a cheap and easy to develop way for doing GTO missions as well. As Hermes never flew, most missions went to GTO. But Ariane 5G did a few LEO missions, too (Envisat, Helios, ...).
• #29 by Michael Z Freeman on 27 Sep, 2007 12:41

• Quote

  Jim - 27/9/2007  12:26 PM  

  Quote

  DJ Barney - 27/9/2007  7:04 AM  Will the ESA be launching missions to the ISS and funding it, even though NASA have withdrawn funding after 2015 and are still docking Orion with it ?  DJ Barney

   When the US withdrawals, the ISS will end. It can't be sustained without the US

  Hmmm. Thanks for the answer, but I can't help noticing that this conflicts with the Vision for Space, as described by Neil deGrasse Tyson in this talk  he did at the Boston Museum of Science.

  He describes how NASA encourage innovation in an area of the economy and  then move on to other areas. He describes how the ISS has become uneconomical FOR NASA, but how the other partners could carry on and make it a success.

  Why are the ESA spending millions on developing the Jules Verne vehicle if it will be defunct beyond 2015 ? I wonder if I have stumbled across an area of policy that simply has not been decided, or clarified ?

  I would normally accept your answer but keep running across contradictory material ... like the assertation that Orion will dock with the ISS. How can this be so if there is no ISS after 2015 ?

  DJ Barney

• #30 by Jim on 27 Sep, 2007 12:55
• Quote

  DJ Barney - 27/9/2007  8:41 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 27/9/2007  12:26 PM  

  Quote

  DJ Barney - 27/9/2007  7:04 AM  Will the ESA be launching missions to the ISS and funding it, even though NASA have withdrawn funding after 2015 and are still docking Orion with it ?  DJ Barney

   When the US withdrawals, the ISS will end. It can't be sustained without the US

  Hmmm. Thanks for the answer, but I can't help noticing that this conflicts with the Vision for Space, as described by Neil deGrasse Tyson in this talk  he did at the Boston Museum of Science.

  He describes how NASA encourage innovation in an area of the economy and  then move on to other areas. He describes how the ISS has become uneconomical FOR NASA, but how the other partners could carry on and make it a success.

  Why are the ESA spending millions on developing the Jules Verne vehicle if it will be defunct beyond 2015 ? I wonder if I have stumbled across an area of policy that simply has not been decided, or clarified ?

  I would normally accept your answer but keep running across contradictory material ... like the assertation that Orion will dock with the ISS. How can this be so if there is no ISS after 2015 ?

  DJ Barney

  
  Mike Griffin restating ISS will end 5 years after assembly complete
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070926/sc_afp/spaceeuropeusrussia_070926071136;_ylt=AoPqhsgpKqe4JUZ8YUvFeG3lmlUA
• #31 by Space Lizard on 12 Oct, 2007 15:10
• That leaves NASA with two presidential elections before the withdrawal is acted. The future is not carved in stone yet.
• #32 by Jim on 12 Oct, 2007 15:32
• Quote

  Space Lizard - 12/10/2007  11:10 AM
  
  That leaves NASA with two presidential elections before the withdrawal is acted. The future is not carved in stone yet.

  
  Work has already started
• #33 by Space Lizard on 15 Oct, 2007 20:40
• Work has started on so many things that did not eventually happen...
• #34 by MKremer on 15 Oct, 2007 21:47
• Quote

  Space Lizard - 15/10/2007  3:40 PM
  
  Work has started on so many things that did not eventually happen...

  
  Not so much future work, but the cancelling or limiting of lots of current and future support and hardware/supply contracts and not including them in future budget proposals. Any future work would just be for the plans and budget for whatever type of de-orbiting vehicle is decided upon.
  
• #35 by TJL on 14 Nov, 2007 21:25
• Sorry if its been asked before but what is the difference between Ariane 5 GS, G, and ECA?
  Which carries largest payloads?
  Thank you.
• #36 by edkyle99 on 15 Nov, 2007 03:58
• Quote

  TJL - 14/11/2007  4:25 PM
  
  Sorry if its been asked before but what is the difference between Ariane 5 GS, G, and ECA?
  Which carries largest payloads?
  Thank you.

  
  Generally speaking, Ariane 5G was the initial model.  It had a "G" (Generic) core with a Vulcain 1 main engine and an EPS hypergolic upper stage.  The Ariane 5 ECA is the current standard model.  It uses an "E" core powered by a Vulcain 2 topped by a cryogenic ESC-A upper stage.  It also has slightly more powerful strap-on boosters.  ECA can haul 10 tonnes to GTO while G could only boost 6.64 tonnes.
  
  Two interim G-series models were used during the G to E transition period.  Ariane 5G+ was a standard Generic model topped by an EPS upper stage loaded with a bit more propellant.   Ariane 5GS added the improved E-class solid motors to the G+ configuration. The "G" series is currently being phased out.  
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #37 by on 15 Nov, 2007 18:06
• Quote

  DJ Barney - 27/9/2007  7:41 AM ...
  

  Why are the ESA spending millions on developing the Jules Verne vehicle if it will be defunct beyond 2015 ? ...
  

  Europe has had no experience with manned space vehicles. It makes sense to do ATV and to have a capability to launch Soyuz to strategically develop own aerospace business. Russian also wishes to maintain its capabilities similarly, and is often caught in the bind between "too much" or "too little". (Indirectly, also killing a lot of US manned space too.)
  

  Columbus and ATV are worthwhile for ESA as it stands. As for the long term, who can say given the state of the world.

  As to the ISS, it could be the prototype of other stations. Assuming there is a real reason for a space station following ISS - which currently there isn't. The mentality of "if you build it they will come" (and use it) hasn't worked with ISS, and this is the key issue for anything long term. 

• #38 by meiza on 18 Mar, 2008 14:07
• What's the status of Ariane 5 ECB? Vinci? Any decisions coming up?
• #39 by catfry on 18 Mar, 2008 14:54
• Presumably these decisions will be taken up at the next ministerial level council meeting, coming up in, I think, november.
• #40 by Jirka Dlouhy on 30 Mar, 2008 12:07
• Quote

  CentEur - 5/9/2007  9:15 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Spiff - 4/9/2007  11:43 AM
  
  The EU (Yes I know, that is not ESA) has become almost twice as big in the past 4 years with a lot of eastern european countries joining. Are they (planning to be) members of ESA as well? If so, how much will that increase ESA budget and what opportunities will that bring?

  
  We (Czech Rep. Hungary, Poland and Romania) are on the road to full membership, currently engaged through 5-year PECS (Plan for European Cooperating State). I wouldn't expect noticeable changes even with full membership. We're simply too poor today. Also the level of interest in space is very low (in Poland). Hope it gets better once EuroSoyuz starts flying.  

  
  Czech Republic according to declaration of our government will be a member of ESA in second half of 2008.  When it will succeed, that it will a good message for czech aerospatial industry a research.
• #41 by CentEur on 31 Mar, 2008 07:08
• Quote

  Jirka Dlouhy - 30/3/2008  2:07 PM
  Czech Republic according to declaration of our government will be a member of ESA in second half of 2008.  When it will succeed, that it will a good message for czech aerospatial industry a research.

  
  What was your last PECS budget? Poland starts with the smallest possible € 1.1 million.
• #42 by meiza on 17 Apr, 2008 21:10
• As most people know, the ESA ministerial council meeting is coming up and includes some big decisions.
  There's Ariane updates. The future launcher programme. Crew vehicle decisions. Huge multi-billion science missions. A million things. It also seems all the info is kept very secret.
  
  I find it worrying - first there is no info, then everything is presented in a meeting and an immediate decision should follow. This leaves very little involvement for the public or organizations.
  
  It's a bit like with the ESAS: A quick study that is then made the unquestionable law.
  
  I understand you can't mull things indefinitely and sometimes just have to settle on *something*, but this is not the way a publicly funded agency should work in my opinion. I may be incorrect about the decision process, but it seems like that to me. We get very little information on European space projects beforehand.
  
  I wish a more open way of doing things would be embraced.
• #43 by Felix on 18 Apr, 2008 16:15
• As far as i understand ESA is still working on the proposals and wont release them until they are finished.
  
  Maybe less publicity is the way to go in Europe. Less publicity means less people complaining about the cost of space flight.
  
  I dont think we'll see a European ESAS dilemma. There is no schedule pressure for a new launcher (aka "the gap"). There aren't many different configurations. We have only one launcher: Ariane 5 (compared to Shuttle, Altas V, Delta IV). Assuming that ArianeSpace / ESA would like to keep Ariane 5 running like they did with Ariane 4 we would need a new launch complex. To conclude we wouldnt face many of those problems the US is facing right now (except for the budget of course).
  
  ESA ministerial council meeting:
  I guess they keep the Vinici dev going for a couple of reason (prevent job loss at Snecma, could be prototype for a bigger (main stage) engine)
• #44 by meiza on 18 Apr, 2008 23:00
• Umm, but if the stuff is not decided in the next ministerial council in the fall, when then? It will be indefinitely delayed like great many things anyway...
  
  Less publicity should not be the way to go in any democracy. They are using public funds. The information is not harmful. Let's have a movement. Wake up the sheep!
• #45 by mr.columbus on 19 Apr, 2008 07:27
• Quote

  meiza - 18/4/2008  7:00 PM
  
  Less publicity should not be the way to go in any democracy. They are using public funds. The information is not harmful. Let's have a movement. Wake up the sheep!

  
  I am all for more publicity at ESA, but the truth be told, it is not just convenience on part of them not to give out much information before deciding things. It is, oddly enough, also a question of funds available for publicity and coordination to receive information from the various projects to actually make public.
• #46 by CentEur on 19 Apr, 2008 17:53
• Looking at ESA's openness I can see different levels for different actions.
  
  1. Decision making process is almost completely obscure.
  2. Development progress is clearly described.
  3. Operational phase data is trickling at best.
  
  Due to the nature of ESA's decision making process - the negotiations between 17 ministers - I'm not surprised to get little information beforehand, and I don't think it's going to change anytime soon (if ever). On the other hand the proposals are (as Felix pointed) limited and rarely there are more options than simple go / no-go. And when there are (ATV evolution vs cooperation with Russians vs nothing) they have strong political strings attached.
  
  Development process openness is much better. For example every ESA Bulletin contains ESA Programmes in Progress document where recent actions concerning the projects in development are described.
  
  Operational phase data is limited to the point of disappointment. The first website to serve Huygens descent photos was some US university. Mars Express made photos are greatly outnumbered by those from any US orbiter. You could wait several weeks to get another Moon photo from SMART-1 and so on. If we are to call for openness, here is where ESA needs biggest improvement.
• #47 by catfry on 20 Apr, 2008 06:52
• From the ESA site:
  

  
  The ESA Council
   
  ESA’s governing body is the Council. This is composed of high-level representatives of ESA Member States and is responsible for drawing up the European Space Plan and ensuring the long-term funding of the Agency’s activities. Each ESA Member State has one vote and is represented by a Council delegate from the ministry responsible for space activities in each Member State.
  
  In general, Council meetings are held every three months at delegate level and every two to three years at ministerial level. Meetings at delegate level usually take place at ESA’s headquarters.
  
  Council is responsible for:
  drawing up the European Space Plan
  ensuring that it is being followed
  approving both ongoing and future Programmes
  deciding on the level of resources to be made available to ESA
  
  ESA’s activities are divided into nine Directorates, each headed by a Director who reports directly to the Director General. These are:
  Earth Observation Programmes
  Technical and Quality Management
  Launcher Programmes
  Human Spaceflight, Microgravity and Exploration Programmes
  Resources Management
  External Relations
  Science Programmes
  EU and Industrial Programmes
  Operations and Infrastructure
  

  
  Looks like if you want to know more of the direction that ESA is taking you should ask your contry's ESA Council Delegate. He will be a member of your country's ministerium responsible for space activities and will likely be beholden to rules of public scrutiny, depending on what country we are talking about.
• #48 by mr.columbus on 02 Jun, 2008 07:42
• http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/66/6607.htm
  
  For people who want to know more about the UK's dealings with ESA, detailed expenditure figures etc., this is quite a good read. It's part of the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Commons.
• #49 by CentEur on 21 Jul, 2008 14:58
• Quote from: CentEur on 31 Mar, 2008 07:08

  Quote

  Jirka Dlouhy - 30/3/2008  2:07 PM
  Czech Republic according to declaration of our government will be a member of ESA in second half of 2008.  When it will succeed, that it will a good message for czech aerospatial industry a research.

  
  What was your last PECS budget? Poland starts with the smallest possible € 1.1 million.
  

  
  Here is an answar (of a kind) - "During the first four-year period, the overall contribution to the PECS by the Czech Republic amounted to approximately €12 million."
  
  http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMJZXSHKHF_index_0.html
• #50 by Archibald on 22 Jul, 2008 07:23
• Quote

  In general, Council meetings are held every three months at delegate level and every two to three years at ministerial level

  
  Was Rome (11-12 January 1985) the first of these meetings ?
  Or did they started earlier ?
  
  
• #51 by Use The World on 18 Dec, 2012 22:49
• I arrived in Cayenne today and will go to ESA at Kourou tomorrow.
  
  What is the best place to be to see the launch ?
  
  Somebody here told me to go to Mount Peres
  
  Thanks
  
  
  Carsten