ESA Q&A

#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.