The European Space Agency completed a major ministerial meeting yesterday in Berlin and, in general, the agency did pretty well. The ministers, representing the agency’s 17 member states plus Canada, approved a number of major projects, including the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) Earth science/reconnaissance satellite system and the ExoMars rover mission (which the UK in particular enthusiastically supported), as well as continued funding for ISS research.
The one major program that lost out at the meeting was a proposal to work with Russia on the Kliper manned spacecraft program. ESA had hoped to get €50 million (US$59 million) over two years to fund preliminary design studies of the vehicle. However, New Scientist reported that some major ESA members, including France, Germany, and Italy, failed to back the proposal. According to SPACE.com, member nations were concerned that ESA would be little more than a “small industrial contributor” with little say over project management. It’s not clear how much of a setback this is to Russia’s Kliper plans in general.
ESA also approved a “Buy European” launcher policy that requires that ESA member states use European vehicles—Ariane 5, Vega, and Soyuz once it begins operations from Kourou—for their spacecraft. However, ESA apparently adopted a broad definition of “European”: Reuters reports that the policy includes the Rockot, a converted Russian ICBM operated by Eurockot, a German-Russian joint venture 51% owned by EADS.
Update 12/7 12:45 pm: A Space News article [subscription required] indicates that the “Buy European” provision described above is actually a watered-down version of what was originally planned: the requirement applies only to ESA, not to individual nations or other European organizations. Also, the policy obligates ESA to arrange backup launch services for any satellites intended for launch on the Ariane 5, to avoid delays should the Ariane 5 experience problems down the road. Arianespace already provides such backup arrangements to commercial customers under the “Launch Services Alliance” that includes the Zenit 3SL and Japanese H-2A. So, ironically, ESA satellites could end up flying on non-European vehicles in some circumstances!
“ESA also approved a “Buy European” launcher policy that requires that ESA member states use European vehicles”
Thank you very much ITAR. That law has now effectively closed off an entire market for US launch companies. What will it take for Congress to realize that law is flawed. NASA hardware launched on foreign rockets? Oh, wait…
ESA’s “Buy European” inniative has nothing to do with ITAR.
I agree with Mr. Trotter: the “Buy European” provision has nothing to do with ITAR but instead a desire for Europe to get some return on the large investment it has made in launch vehicles. (See the revised version of the original post for details on how this provision is a weaker version of what was originally intended.) ESA has pumped a lot of euros into European industry to develop the small Vega launcher in particular; they do not want to see European governments then go and buy cheap launches from Russia, India, or even the US (Swedish Space Corporation has purchased a Falcon 1 launch.) Since the weakened version of the policy applies only to ESA, this can hardly be seen as a surprise: ESA use of the Rockot in particular had always been seen as a stopgap until the Vega enters service.
Also keep in mind that the US space transportation policy requires the government to purchase US launches except under special circumstances (like JWST); it’s entirely reasonable to expect Europe to adopt something similar.
I stand corrected. At a recent conference someone (Dennis Wingo, I think) mentioned a desire by Europe to be “ITAR free” in 10 years or so. Is anyone aware of what our government has had to say about that or whether they even care?
Unrelated issue:
Last night, I heard about half of a speech by Dr. Griffin at the American Geophysical Union Conference in San Francisco, which I am covering for Astronomy Now. (I had to leave early for the final rehearsal for a performance which had to take priority.) He made a number of interesting points. He proved a relatively poor public speaker, but the speech itself was excellent. Keep in mind that he was speaking to scientists, and that these are paraphrases from hand-written notes, not direct quotes (as far as I can tell no text was given to the press). They also do not necessarily reflect my opinion.
Dr. Griffin noted that before WW-II, government investment in science and technology was almost “negligible” and that NASA and everyone in the room was descendent of Vanover Bush’s vision. Exploration and science both benefit each other as they pursue their separate goals.
He said that we have barely begun to explore space and implied that it is far too early to draw any conclusions about what is possible.
We tend to think European exploration started with Columbus, but Portuguese mariners had seventy years of exploration, at the cost of many lives, before Columbus started his voyage. In contrast, the space age is only fifty years old. Only twelve people have landed on the moon. “It is my job to make that number grow be leaps and bounds.” Soon, earthbound observers with a telescope will be able to see the lights of lunar explorers.
While exploration will be a boon to science in the long term, Dr. Griffin does not intend to gut near-term science. However, Earth science now gets $4 billion, almost as large as the entire NSF budget, and has grown far faster than NASA’s budget as a whole. That cannot be sustained within NASA’s fixed budget. NASA will continue to invest in Earth science. Frequent small missions will create a distributed “great observatory” for Earth science that is greater than the sum of its parts.
And, that’s all I captured.
— Donald
No need to capture it, Donald. The speech is here.
Thanks, Rand!
— Donald
After all their experience with Soyuz, the Russians want Kliper, an X-38-style lifting body.