Slashdot Mirror
Rescue Mission For European Space Industry
metz2000 writes "The New Scientist reports that the European Space Agency (ESA) has pledged hundreds of millions of Euros to guarantee its independent access to space. Europe also looks set to co-operate with the Russian Space Agency. Looks like the space industry is hotting up again. How will NASA react to this news after being the dominant space agency over the past three decades? A lot of money is going into rocket technology also; with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"
... then surely it would be an advantage for the stricken space-program to have the other party to fall back on?
I'm thinking particularly of in-space rescues where the other program may have the resources ready to launch a rescue-mission, but there are probably other scenarios from which both NASA and ESA would benefit.
Plus, competition will mean that the science thrives, particularly in the current political climate (don't kid yourself - the US and Europe are *not* friends right now).
Mod early, mod often.
The ESA and NASA already have a history of working together. The Saturn-bound Cassini, for instance, has the ESA-designed Huygens aboard. A little competition is healthy (see the current Mars missions), but international cooperation is the only way we'll see big projects like Cassini in the future.
Um, so what you're saying is that when America does space stuff, it's good for the world, but when Europe does space stuff, that's "conflict across the Atlantic?" How's that work then?
Not intending to troll but that "conflict" thing does seem like an odd conclusion. Are Europeans now terrorists? How about a bit more reasoning, rather than just saying "Europe? Space? WAR!!!!!"
Yes and no. The idea behind the shuttle was to save on having to build an entirely new launch vehicle every time you wanted to put a payload into orbit.
Unfortuanately, the shuttle program was based on some incorrect assumptions. First, it was assumed that their cost predictions for the shuttle would be accurate (they weren't, it costs far more per launch than predicted) and secondly, the increase in payloads wanting taking to orbit wasn't predicted (there was a massive increase, IIRC)
In theory, reusables are cheaper, but in the short term the throw away option works better.
What would make throw away rockets even cheaper is a dual use philosophy of design, allowing the entire rocket (or a lot of it at least) to reach orbit, where it could be reused to form parts for orbiting storage or some such (after all, these are generally allready presurized tanks, so they will be airtight in orbit)
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
>
> "...are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"
>
What kind of conflict do you mean, and what might cause it because Europe develops some tehcnological abilities of it's own?
Does the US feel somehow threatened when it doesn't have a monopoly on many kinds of stuff anymore? Does it have a reason to be afraid in that case?
"Hey, i'm growing potatoes, you must not research the hoe technology (because then i would lose the monopoly on producing and selling these artificially degraded and overpriced potatoes to whom i wish, whenever it might suit my needs).."
If I remember correcty, the ESA are the only ones actually making money from space with their Ariane program. If you ask me, the dominant agency has been ESA for a long time. And before that it was Russia.
I'd like to remind you of the fact that even though NASA is very glad to have won the race to the moon, there was no such thing. Instead of going there and back, the Russians put Mir in orbit, which is a more useful and lasting feat than putting a flag on the moon.
It's not true that ESA is primarily a French project with some British involvement. The ESA funding comes from most of the primary participants, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Denmark etc. The French contribute a large chunk of the funding but they also have a large role with their government funded labs working on research which compliments the ESA work which enhances their role in european space science. The British on the other hand pay propotionally much less than the other european partners (do you see a pattern here). British institutions will bid for research areas much like other european institutes but they don't contribute as much to the centralised european fund (ESA).
The lander on the current mars mission is British built - but not really as a ESA project. It was cobbled together from research funding from various british university and research labs for an obscenly small sum of money. (relative to the other lander projects) - an will be a real coupe if the scientific payload pays off.
A single Ariane 5 launch costs around $150 M which is roughly $140 MEuros, so this is good for around ten launches. Proton and Soyuz are cheaper - $80M and $40M respectively. (a table of launch vehicles costs). But of course this money won't be spent directly on launches, you have to have something to launch first.
ESA have just announced that they intend to offer Soyuz launch vehicals from the european launch site in south america. This is partly intended to bring the cost of launch down and partly to provide a small load, reliable launch vehical which fills a gap for payloads smaller than the Ariane lifters. Ariane is designed for much larger payloads - taking 2 or 3 instruments up at a time. The newest Ariane (before it's recent suspension) could lift nearly 10 tons - making the largest active lifter.
I don't think that europe is or will want a european space race. Europe should be able instigate and push some interesting projects in the next 10 years (venus express, rossetta etc) but most of these missions (if not all) are hugely collaborative and involve US, Canadian, European, Japanese, Russian and Chinese participants. The time when any individual agency wanted to go it alone are long gone.
When you have capsules, you do not need to to launch wings, control mechanisms, and all the other bits that make up an airplane into orbit. That saves a huge amount of weight. The saved weight can be "spent" in two ways: cheaper rockets and larger payloads.
The cost advantage of cheaper rockets (i.e. Soyuz) over a shuttle is obvious (something like a factor 20 or so).
The cost advantage of larger payloads is also obvious: all of your energy is used lifting stuff that actually needs to be in space, rather than used to return safely to Earth. A shuttle launch assembly minus the shuttle (instead imagine a huge cargo container in its place) would have phenomenal lifting power; in fact, the Russian equivalent of this, Energia, could have launched the entire weight of ISS in just three launches! That would have saved a few hundred billion dollars.
So stop thinking of the shuttle as a "cool space plane", and instead consider it to be a highly over-engineered, *heavy* method of returning to Earth.
So what is the problem with this? I guess it has to do with NASA being afraid to lose face, which seems inevitable when they give up on the shuttle and return to expendable launchers.
Here's what I believe the various space agencies should do to replace the shuttle:
- Develop an expendable launcher that can lift *really heavy* items into a useful orbit (which can be ISS orbit, geostationary, or some escape orbit). Russia's Energia would be a good starting point, as would the shuttle launch stack (they are related anyway). This would be the heavy workhorse for orbital construction.
- Develop an expendable launcher that can lift people to that same orbit. Put a capsule on it in which people can travel comfortably and safely during the entire trip - i.e. it is fine to overengineer a bit, since it will one day safe lives. Use that just for people.
- Want to do something in orbit? Put your equipment on a big launcher (together with a lot of other stuff), and put your people on a small, safe launcher. The big launcher delivers to ISS (or some other orbital facility - constructing them will be cheap with this model), where the resident astronauts can install and operate it.
This is a rare 'carrot' for UK residents, more used the threat of monetory union and other unpleasent symptoms of a united Europe.
Unpleasent? You obviously don't travel or trade between European countries often.
Here's a hint. 75% of the press in the UK is owned by three men. Those three men are anti-europe, and are using their control over the UK press to sway public opinion away from Europe. If you read The Sun, The Telegraph, The Times or The Daily Mirror (amongst others) then be aware that they have an agenda to feed you with negative propaganda about Europe. As a UK citizen who now spends most of his time "in Europe" I must say that my previous (and in retrospect naive) view of England as having an quality, open and honest press has changed considerably over the last five years. It is dishonest and manipulative. Don't fall for it.
Not intending to troll but that "conflict" thing does seem like an odd conclusion. Are Europeans now terrorists?
I think the problem is that Americans like to think of themselves as the most powerful nation on earth and have gotten used to being first in everything. But, objectively, the US is a mid-size nation with an economy that is in deep trouble ($3 trillion in foreign debt and growing rapidly), that depends on skilled immigration for its competitiveness, and that faces enormous inequalities and social problems. The preeminent role of the US was an artifact of the aftermath of WWII. Now that Europe is pretty close to a federation and that China and India have caught up technologically, America becomes merely one among several large players, and not the biggest or most important one.
The only area where the US is clearly first is in military spending. But that really worries foreign nations. What is the US going to do when (and it's "when", not "if") foreign investments slow down, the dollar crumbles, skilled workers stay away, and the economy falters? Is it going to dismantle its military and quietly accept being a second-rate player on the world stage? Or is the US going to try to get by force what it won't be able to get by other means? Using the US military for economic reasons has happened before.
It is completely natural for European and Asian space programs, which represent larger populations and economies, to surpass the US programs. This is only the beginning of many changes. The question is whether Americans can get used to it.
Yeah, because the UK being killed 100x over by the US would be so much more degrading than for the US, who would just be killed once by the UK...?
...
Does *nobody* remember the 1980s?? Jeez, you'd think *someone* would have learned something
Mod early, mod often.
The economic problems (which there are many of, as in the U.S.) aside, Arianespace and ESA are two rather successful operations.
:)
A single ariane is a) cheaper in total than a shuttle launch and b) able of lifting more cargo into space than any other space craft. About 40% of all satellite launches are done by Arianespace. That's hardly unsuccessful.
About Galileo. Did you ever hear the word 'competition'. GPS is the only vendor in the global positioning market. Monopolies are, however, from an economical point of view highly unwanted for they tend to provide inferior products for higher prices. And, while the concept is the same, Galileo is hardly anymore a rip-off GPS than a Mercedes is off a Ford