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?"

Comments

First!

[Billly Gates]

Anyway I do not think its a conflict. Unlike the cold war there is no need to create a space race in order to improve military technology.

Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.

I think it would be great for nasa to work together. If the US wants to be seen as a world player they may need to increase funding to NASA and have it work with the European space agency. The russians have been great help working with Nasa and I expect the same.

Re:First!

[splateagle]

Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.

Pretty sweeping unsupported statement that, you might want to look at EADS before making any more blind assumptions there... That said I think you're missing the point.

The first space race might have been driven by the military, but if there is to be a second race between ESA and NASA I imagine it'll most likely be driven more by developments in civil aerospace.

Arianespace are hardly a minor global player, neither are Airbus. While admitedly they've yet to show a direct interest in space flight, they are part of EADS and given Boeing's development, it's unimaginable that Airbus hasn't got it's eye on space at some point in the future...

As it stands the ESA have already been working with NASA and the remnants of the old soviet space agency (calling it "Russian" is confusing, since Russia is in Europe) and I expect that they'll continue doing just that, the Space Station is after all an International venture, not just an American thing.

Race or not, this news seems to suggest that (as happened with civil aviation technology in the later years of last century,) Europe might be about to take the dominant role in Space technology now... maybe. Should be interesting anyway, and anything that drives us forward globally has to be a good thing.

Space is hotting up indeed

[lingqi]

Did y'all know that China has very recently launched it's third navigational satellite, making it possible for china to use its own positional system independently of US / EU / Russia? (three is the minimum for triangulation - if you assume that the triangulated point in space is to be thrown out)

btw, I find it so very amusing that whenever western sources refer to the chinese space program, they just HAVE to add phrase like "secret, military linked," as if NASA is completely independent of the military, or something...

anyhoo. maybe there is still a chance for me to visit mars before I die eh? or some serious possibility of WWIII - as China and EU becomes increasingly suspicious of US... (not unwarrented or anything)

Re:Space is hotting up indeed

[Cyberdyne]

Did y'all know that China has very recently launched it's third navigational satellite, making it possible for china to use its own positional system independently of US / EU / Russia? (three is the minimum for triangulation - if you assume that the triangulated point in space is to be thrown out)

You need three visible satellites for triangulation. Picture the globe, and work out where the satellites would be. Either they're geostationary, clustered over one part (which would give a crude GPS service - over one chunk of the Earth only) or they're not (in which case you can't triangulate anything from them on Earth). You might be able to use them from a lower orbit, though, for positioning satellites; all 3 equidistant GEO satellites would be visible when you're over either pole. Whatever it is, it's not [yet] a GPS rival!

btw, I find it so very amusing that whenever western sources refer to the chinese space program, they just HAVE to add phrase like "secret, military linked," as if NASA is completely independent of the military, or something...

It is independent of the military, actually; the Pentagon did have input in the Shuttle program early on (they wanted to be able to use it for launching and servicing/upgrading spy satellites, which can't be done with a rocket) but these days they launch their own stuff, on rockets from Lockheed Martin. (Built in what Michael Moore claimed in BFC was a "missile factory", as it happens.) NASA probably handle some stuff for the military, still, but most of it is done "in-house" using their own systems - in fact, orbital monitoring is military, with a full-time member of staff to liase with NASA and monitor the status of the Shuttle and ISS.

Re:Space is hotting up indeed

[Alan Partridge]

" (Built in what Michael Moore claimed in BFC was a "missile factory", as it happens.)"

He actually refers to them as "rockets with a Pentagon payload", which is about right. There's a good chance that the kind of payload that those Titan and Atlas rockets carry is a LOT more dangerous than a Tomahawk.

Hmmm, Interesting

[SkArcher]

With the current problems in the US space program, it may be that the newly fixed Arianne launch system can claim a significant share of the market.

It is important to remember that Arianne is also somewhat cheaper than the Shuttle for any given weight of payload - the shuttles main advantage is that its live crew (which is the reason for the higher cost) can perform and regulate scientific tests.

I await the next Arianne launch with baited breath.

Heavy lifters

[Bombula]

We've seen many articles we've recently about space, including the recent Shuttle tragedy and the successful launch of the Mars Express, as well as the X-prize. Throughout, I continue to see an emphasis on the importance of reusable equipment. Can someone give a comprehensive explanation for why lifting technology needs to be reusable?

It seems like 30 years ago we did pretty well with expendable rockets. Since each shuttle mission costs hundreds of millions, is it really worth it? Why not invest in the development of a 'cheap' single-use lifting technology, like a successor for Soyuz? Even if each rocket cost $100 million wouldn't it still save lots of money, and wouldn't it mean much larger payloads could be delivered?

Re:Heavy lifters

[The Shepherd]

A major problem with the development of heavy lifters is the loss of information. When the US decided to stop relying on the heavy lifter model they also stopped keeping the current information up-to-date. In order to redevelop the heavy lifter the entire program would have to be restarted. The price tag is simply to high for the American Government to contemplate. Backup for this idea can be found in the book Space: The Final Frontier? by Giancarlo Genta and Michael Rycroft, page 88 "The American decision (shut down Saturn production lines) was probably a mistake; also for the loss of know-how which followed. If a rocket like Saturn V had to be built today, a long research and development programme would be needed and not only to introduce all of the updates due to the advances of the three most recent decades. Technological know-how in all fields cannot be considered as something acquired once and for ever. Of some capabilities are not used for a certain time, they fade and can be regained only with large investments, in terms of human and financial resources."

Re:Heavy lifters

[Ex-MislTech]

They want to get the cost per kilogram/pound down .

They want to launch more often, and this idea
will get them clear of the air traffic lanes .

Just position this out over the pacific high
above any storm systems reach .

I think a high altitude rail gun platform would work
nicely to get cargo into space .

It would not work for ppl, as it would pull so many G's
it would kill them .

Some tested rail guns have hit Mach 120+ in the low earth
atmosphere with all its friction .

At 160,000 feet using high altitude balloon tech to build
a suspended launch platform you could fire a rail gun
to launch cylinders into space with needed materials .

Getting ppl into space would require a more conventional means,
but the cargo has always been the heavier portion .

www.21stcenturyairships.com has already got working prototype
ballons working at near 70,000 feet .

NASA set a world record for a ballon at 161,000 feet , so it
can be done , 32 miles up would be a good head start .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020 82 7063353.htm

These guys could provide the balloon logistics :

http://www.andyelson.com/proj_theedgeofspace.htm

With 99% of the earth's atmosphere out of the way, a high power
rail gun shooting something at speeds in excess of mach 120
would get it to the moon with NO PROBLEM .

Less atmosphere, less friction, less gravity .

Building a space elevator sounds cool, but cost is
prohibitive and the logistics sound VERY scary .

The link to the world's fastest rail gun is

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_techn ol ogy/railway.html

use CTRL+F and then enter "fastest" for your search .

speed of sound at sea level is 330 yds/sec, they achieved
39,991M/sec .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Re:Heavy lifters

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yep. My father, who also worked on Apollo (yes, Daddy really did send men to the Moon -- decades later, I still get a little-kid jolt out of that idea), Skylab, and Viking, left the aerospace industry in disgust during the early stages of the Shuttle program. He said it was heartbreaking how things kept getting scaled down; the engineers knew the administration was being penny-wise and pound-foolish, but they couldn't do anything about it.

Re:Heavy lifters

[kirinyaga]

actually, there is a major problem however with launcher able to lift really heavy payload : really heavy payload cost a lot of money and the launcher can just explode and blow all the really heavy & expensive stuff away. Until such a really huge launcher would have proved itself reliable enough, the "expected cost" (cost times risk) would be higher than lifting a lot of small parts. There is a need for slighty bigger launchers however.

Re:Heavy lifters

[flyingdisc]

NASA are considering cloning the Energia: it's called Magnum.

Part of the reason that the energia was pulled out of active service was the environmental impact of the thing. Claiming to lift up to 100 tones in to high altitude the rocket packed a huge punch in terms of fuel. So much so that it had a demonstratable impact on the launch site. This and the cost made it untenable. It's easier, less costly, lower risk to launch large structures (eg ISS) into orbit in a modular fashion.

Current space philosophy is smaller lighter faster. What's the need for 100 ton launchers if we can do the same job with smaller rockets?

Is there more to it than traditional exploration?

[arcite]

After reading recent stories here on /. about Chinese interests in building a moon base and extracting resources, I wonder what are Europe's space program's primary goals? Are they interested mostly in hard science stuff? Or are they creating and building up an entirely new kind of space industry? Perhaps what I really want to know is, when do the orbiting space hotels go up? :)

A Good Thing (TM) for the Space Industry

[stoborrobots]

This may just be a good thing for the space industry in general...

Didn't the really great advances in space travel come about because of the intellectual battle between the US and the Soviet Union?

If the ESA starts making inroads into space research and NASA wants to keep its top position, it will be forced to become really competitive, and this might mean that we will see missions which *succeed*!!!

Or we may just see more missions, with more cut corners... :-(

European GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with GPS, is that US can turn it off when ever they want to. This makes it hard to make security equipment that depends on GPS. Like for boats and so, Military systems already exists, and theres no need for a GPS in the European Military (From what I know). Sure the European Military wouldnt mind a new GPS system, not at all. But they dont realy _need_ it. An european GPS is good for the consumer, that gets two systems to choose from. Its good got the rescue crew (that cant use the militray systems) that in a few years can have equipment running on _both_ gps and "euro-gps"

Re:European GPS

[CausticWindow]

And "eruo-gps" is supposed to be hundred percent commercial. If the military want to use it, they'll have to pay like everybody else.

How's that for free market, US?

no need to keep 100% accurate local time

[lingqi]

I was always under the impression that even with three satellites, you would be able to use the GPS signal to correct your local clock.

Few reasons for this, IIRC:

1) all three satellites are keeping perfect time, so if your clock is off, it is very easy to compensate for.

2) satellites transmit positional information - this can be compared with your local positional table to correct your local time

Besides the point - since details are sketchy, they might even be using dual-band per satellite to compensate for atmospheric delay errors.

Of course, i might be talking out of my ass - so if you have evidence backing up what you say, prove me wrong.

Few problems, many positives

[Logopop]

First of all, I see no future 'conflict'. There are many players here besider the US, and the International Space Station shows us that we have no problems besides technical to cooperate when it comes to space exploration (except maybe Russian funding). Both the Chinese and the Japanese have programs with great momentum.
The system redundancy argument is a good one. I am sure that there's a lot of obscure politics involved, but technically speaking I am looking forward to being able to utilize a GPS receiver that can correlate the results from two independent systems. There were receivers that did that with GLONASS, I don't know if that system is still operable.
Competition is of course good, however I think that the potential for commercial competition is fairly slim for the time being due to the high cost of anything space related and that you can't 'claim' resources in space like you do on earth (AFAIK).
All in all - the more people/equipment/systems we can bring out into space, the easier it will be to colaborate and go 'where no man has gone before'. Manned mission to Mars, anyone?

-Kris

Conflict US - Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

"with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"

I don't think so, Europeans are quite pacifists (If we remove the uk, of course) they are not oriented to conflict aspects and try to avoid violence as much as possible.

The GPS systems was indeed good to be launched, in Europe there is a huge ammount of GPS civilian users as well there is big investments in adding services to this system. I believe all the GPS users(like me) don't like to feel dependent of the us army to remove the resolution of the GPS location.

In the first day of the iraque attack, I was traveling from the netherlands to austria, and believe in me, it was not funny to loose the sinal and go the wrong way!

Conflict? Competition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah... competition is the word. Why's that bad when it comes to space technology?

One down side I could imagine: competition will not allow for much environmental cleaning... near-earth space is getting more dirty every day. Cleaning does not immediately contribute to lower cost numbers so will be ignored when there's loads of competition.

Eventually we will not be able to send anything into space anymore (all non-dirty time-slots will be gone... it'll be too risky to launch). Then we'll have to start building space buildozers ;-)

Our integrated circuit technology

[alizard]

was originally invented for military / aerospace.

For quite a few years, the military / aerospace sector has basically been building on electronic and computer technology developed for the private consumer sector.

Perhaps it's time for another driver for new technology to show up on the market. Especially given the increasingly successful attempt to suppress new consumer technology by the *AA (RIAA/MPAA) organizations.

Rail Gun system coming

[Ex-MislTech]

For many years the military and other agencies have been looking to
put payload in space with a rail gun as a launchor assisted launch .
A variation on that theme would be a high altitude platform using
something like www.21stcenturyairships.com to lift the cargo to
near 100,000 ft , then use the rail gun to kick start it and if a
heavy payload fire a booster as well . The first 20 miles of flight would be eliminated .
A series of MANY of these balloons could be used to hold the launch
platform up and the tremendous cargo .
If you run it all with remote control robots, you do not need
to worry about life support systems on the launching pad .
Also you use remote control robots to build your space station,
and do your repairs up in space .
Solar power in space is not filtered by the earth's atmosphere,
there is ALOT more watts per sq. meter up there .
Imagine the work that could be done with no need for food and
water, no need for atmosphere , and protected enclosure for the
repair robots .
If the chinese are smart when they go to build their base on the
moon they will start it out unmanned and built by robots ,
the logistics are just SOOOO much cheaper than trying to keep
humans alive and sane in deep space .
Once they have a large Teraformed cavern underground on the moon
then test it for problems over a period of time , with redundant
systems and escape pod like rescue vehicles . Test it with robots .
The majority of the moon base being underground would be shielded
against meteors , and cosmic radiation .
The dark side of the moon could be used to acquire cooling for
machinery and computers, etc etc .
The light side could be used for a permanent solar farm .
Robots coming back and plugging into the grid when they get
low or redundant battery packs get switched out by battery
serving bots that change one pack at a time and every robot
has two or three, lol .
Once we get a moon base, we have a MUCH cheaper launching
platform than the earth . Less Gravity, no atmosphere
burning you up , and no wind shear .
Then wash, rinse and repeat for mars, pretty simple plan and
we have already sent a tiny robot there .
Just send a larger one and start rail gunning cargo from the
moon base , the cargo goes into orbit around mars and is picked
up by the space station there and then sent down to the surface
by the bouncing ball airbag method used by path finder .
The airbag material can be saved and reused for other needs
once humans arrive once the base is built and safely tested .
Once again an underground base using the heat from the core of
mars would keep the underground base somewhat liveable .
Solar power on mars would not be that good, would need an
alternative like geo-thermal .
For safety reasons the drilling should be a great distance from
the mars base in case a geological problem is let loose similar
to a kick experienced when drilling here in north america .
Run the geo thermal power plant with robots, and have it
beyond a ridge or mountain to protect the colony from
any possible disasters .
A large low light garden would be needed to turn CO2 into O@
to breathe , and provide food , enriched soil with bacteria
would have to be sent to the moon and mars .
How mars bacteria and earth bacteria interact could be dangerous,
another reason to test it with robots for some time .
The big dig in boston has made underground earth works much
cheaper, this tech would be perfect for mars, just implementing
it all the distance aways would be VERY hard .
Due to delay a LARGE space ship/station would need to be built
in orbit best from the moon base, then travel to mars
and ppl could remote control the mars robots from orbit .

Ok I am really rambling here ... my apologies ...

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Re:Some perspective

[splateagle]

1: I think you mean perspective not prospective

2: The "Space Race" was little more than a cold war pissing contest, and It ended decades ago.

3: The ESA is already very much "a player" in space: for one thing it's the market leader in commercial satelite launches, and for another it's one of the few agencies with an active launch vehicle development programme (unlike NASA for example).

Re:Some prospective

[joestar]

Your comment makes me think nobody should trust any statement in comments unless checking the information!

The Galileo project has been really launched now. It's a project funded by different partners (*including* ESA) : European Commision, ESA, European Investment Bank and other smaller partners to come. The goal of Galileo is double : 1) get rid of our current dependency towards the american military GPS system for strategic reasons and because there are reliability issues with the GPS (in particular for civil planes) 2) offer a better system (better precision in localization), primarily for civil usage (but not only) and make money from that.

Galileo's price is 3.2 billions Euros which is roughly the price for building 150 kilometers of semi-urban motorway.

All these informations were taken from the official Galileo website at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/gal ileo/index.htm

Very unlikely on both counts

[EnglishTim]

War is not going to break out between the US and Europe - both sides have enough nuclear missiles to completely wipe the other off the face of the Earth. It's not going to happen. Even if we could resist falling back on nukes, neither side has a sufficiently powerful military to overtake the other - it's just not feasible.

The recent tiff over Iraq is nothing to worry about, and will largely blow over. There's far too much trade in both directions, and there's a lot of Europeans in America and a lot of Americans in Europe. We're just too close to go to war.

As for The UK splitting off from Europe to join with America - I really can't see that happening. The loss of sovereignty in joining Europe is small fry compared to becoming a state of the US.

Re:Very unlikely on both counts

[tenchiken]

I agree with most of your points, except the argument that neither side has a sufficently powerful militay to overtake the other. Europe has around 1 division that is "independent" of NATO (all of the logistics in NATO are US-owned. We are the only ones who would pay for it), and even that unit is not independent until it gets some heavy lift capacity.

The US on the other had can deploy 3 divisions a month (we have 12 total, I believe), 3 additional Marine divisions (MEU) and 12 super carrier groups. If it came down to a war anywhere in the world, unless there is a act of supreme incompetence or a act of God, you don't want to root against the US.

The Iraq tiff will blow over, but there are people in Europe who make no bones about wanting to challange American power. Frankly, with how poor Europe is doing with minority populations (see Monyiham's(sp) book) I suspect that Europe will have to challange radical islamists (ala Russia and the middle east) before they challange the US.

As for the UK, poll after poll states that the English trust America to come to Englands need in case of emergency far more then the commonwealth (Canada, Australia) and orders of magnitude above the EU. I suspect the anglosphere will continue to gain momentum.

Re:Very unlikely on both counts

[tenchiken]

The only nation that has anything approximating the forces of the United States is the UK. Here is a dirty little secret, the US Navy and the UK navy are completly in bed already. American commanders can tap into british ships and vice versus (I believe that Canada and Japan can as well). While America does not spend a much larger percentage of GDP on the military (about 2.8-3.1 percent last I looked) the size of the US economy alone, and the fact that the spending has been pretty static for a while results in us having a huge lead in tatics and equipment.

The other large factor (again) is NATO. Countries that have military units "lend" them to NATO (for example, I believe that the US lends NATO three American divisions). Over time, the European units have focused on front line units, giving them punch in NATO (while the US does all of the logistical concerns). Outside of NATO, they simply do not have the logistical or C2 (command and control) structures neccesary to fight a war.

The UK and France both have "independent" systems. France however has huge issues with their navy. The UK OTOH under UKUSA and other "anglosphere" agreements focueses much more on integration with the US then anythign else.

Re:Cooperation

[TheCaptain]

Actually, what makes me wonder, is why the Russian, European AND American space agencies don't work together on this stuff more - the very tone of the posting "How will NASA react?" tells me NASA probably wasn't even invited to the party. I am not saying they all need to be involved in everything each other do...but why this tone? (Making NASA sound like they are somehow in the defensive?) The tone of the writing only serves to try to foster a little mutual paranoia...rather childish actually, and certainly not helpful.

Anyways...I thought the EU was all about international cooperation and getting along. I am glad NASA and the ESA cooperate as much as they already do...they should likely do more. I seriously doubt NASA has a problem with working with other agencies abroad...

Re:yes, major conflict brewing

[73939133]

America's dominance is not a passing phase that started with WWII and ended on 9/11

The beginning of the decline probably was some time in the 1980's when the US started going into debt more and more (see here). Ultimately, the whole idea of "America" itself becomes fuzzy, when a significant fraction of its assets are foreign-owned.

I think 9/11 is mostly irrelevant to the long term position of the US in the world. If anything, it has harmed US power because of Bush's foreign policy blunders.

and an apples-to-apples comparison would measure the EU against NAFTA

No. NAFTA is primarily a trade arrangement, while the EU is much closer to a federation (free movement of people, harmonized laws, etc.).

it's a phenomenon that will last as long as America lasts,

Well, you reiterate common attitudes among Americans; the question is: are there any rational reasons to believe this?

or until other nations become so much like America that one can't tell them apart.

That's impossible: there simply isn't enough foreign investment (or oil, for that matter) to run other large nations like the US.

In any case, the issue is not whether Europe or the US is "better" or a little bigger. The issue is whether the US is clearly predominant or whether it is just one of many centers of power in the world. I think the world will actually consist of half a dozen or so roughly equally powerful blocks or regions, one of which is the US. The question is whether Americans will accept that fact willingly.

Re:Timely

[pubjames]

As for trade, there are companies that like the fact that multiple currencies are in use - because they are able to make money by moving money around the different currencies.

I guess you're not from a business background. No company likes the fact that there are multiple currencies - it means uncertainty. Many companies have multiple currency accounts to try to counteract currency movements to reduce the uncertainty.

Let me explain it this way. You as a Brit sell a product to, say, the USA. It costs you £5 to make, you sell it for $15. The dollar weakens (in case you haven't noticed, it just has quite considerably). Either you have to charge more for your product (making it less competitive with products produced within the USA, because of course the currency change doesn't affect them), or you make less profit. Here's the crunch - you have no control over currency fluctuations. One day you could be making a profit, the next day a loss, due to something completely out of your control. Now are you seriously going to argue that this is something that businesses like?

Umm, I thought it was kinda obvious that the papers have thier own agendas

There's a huge difference between the press voicing their opinions about things and deliberately lying to or misleading their readership, which is what happens in the UK these days unfortunately.

Re:Conflict across the 49th parallel

[cheesybagel]

Yes.

IMHO the US ended up not buying the plane because of the NIH syndrome and the fact that the US really does not buy weapons technology from abroad: period.

Regarding the Canadian government pulling the plug, at that time several governments considered that bombers were obsolete, hence fighters were unnecessary. Missiles were all the rage.

The UK RAF also suffered terribly from this misguided perception.