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?"

10 of 563 comments (clear)

  1. Space is hotting up indeed by lingqi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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)

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:Space is hotting up indeed by Cyberdyne · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

  2. Heavy lifters by Bombula · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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?

    --
    A-Bomb
    1. Re:Heavy lifters by SkArcher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 /.
  3. Timely by akadruid · · Score: 5, Informative

    The New Scientist report is both inaccurate and out of date.
    A more timely report was published last week at the BBC.
    All the same, this is a very interesting move for the ESA, and for Europe. A challenging move here could well help our efforts towards a more united Europe.
    This is a rare 'carrot' for UK residents, more used the threat of monetory union and other unpleasent symptoms of a united Europe.

    --
    "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
  4. Conflict across the Atlantic? by jazman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!!!!!"

    1. Re:Conflict across the Atlantic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We (those of us in the USA) have gotten jaded ever since the Cold War ended and now expect the rest of the world to just follow along and pick up the crumbs we leave behind.

      Heaven forbid anyone else should dare to lead (or try to lead) in any particular sector of industry...or in anything for that matter!!!

      Not really I suppose but that's how it seems and the maintainers of Slashdot appear to think that way too...it is just sooo much easier to have a closed mind.

      Off topic-ish but I'm personally getting tired of so much nationalism and the relentless need by everyone to overtly and aggressively demonstrate their religious, nationalistic or philosophic identity at the drop of a hat.

      I dread next year's Olympics...:(

  5. What conflict, why? by kimmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >
    > "...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).."

  6. Re:Some prospective by flyingdisc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Cooperation by TheCaptain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...