Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'esa'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 11 results

  1. insert_name

    Arianespace launch thread

    There doesn't appear to be a thread for European rocket launches so I made this. This Tuesday ESA is launching Galileo 19-22 https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/12/08/galileo-navigation-satellites-buttoned-up-for-launch-on-ariane-5-rocket/
  2. Release v0.1 (Beta) Hi guys!! Here's some work i'v beem on this weekends! It's some "compact" version of a moon base fully functional, with few parts and functional as hell!! Only have 3 models until now, an Science Lab, a Mining Facility and GreenHouse (because its pretty, that's all... ). This is the ESA concept for a moon base that i really enjoy and like how it looks! This base's features where made for land build with KAS and KIS! Enjoy! Modules: "Interactive Interiors": Science Lab: GreenHouse: Mining Facility: Ground Solar Panels: Altair Lander - "Big Boy"! (Up to 8 Kerbals) Download Link (SpaceDock) I remember, this is an early release, bugs are expected! If you report it here, I'm gonna be glad to help and fix it! The KSP P.R. don't allow cameras on kerbal's room's, so, this mod, for now won't have an IVA! Known Bugs: - Mining facility - on reload you have to expand the base again... some problem with the mining modules of KSP. Don't know how to solve it yet... This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License Other CC's Mods:
  3. I like how ESA uses animation and anthropomorphized characters now. This mission launched last night (UTC time) and will take seven years for the spacecraft complex to gradually bleed off kinetic energy by multiple encounters with Earth, Venus and Mercury itself. Hopefully everything turns out fine. Who knows what'll be the state of KSP in seven years...
  4. ESA Launchers @Yogui87 ESA Pack is just to nice to leave lying by the road. So here is the continuation and expansion of a great set of parts. No pics no clicks Download from GitHub: https://github.com/macluky/ESA-Launchers or SpaceDock: <soon> Current release consists of: Diamant A small early solid rocket that launches the first european satelite Europa Early ESA rocket based on French and British rockets VEGA Light launcher for ESA Ariane Family Consists of 3, 4, 5, and 6 Credits All modelling and texturing by Lionhead. Ariane 3 parts made by MacLuky based on the the Ariane 4. Original Forum Post http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/12078-025-lionhead-aerospace-inc-icarus-v04-updated/ License CC-BY-NC-SA Known Issues - Though I can get all rockets in orbit there are several issues. The parts feel unbalanced. Especially the Ariane 5,6 and Vega seem extremely overpowered. Please help me create proper values for thrust, fuel and ISP. Once balanced properly we can release it to the general population.
  5. Streetwind

    LISA is officially go!

    It was more or less expected, after last year both confirmed the existence of gravitational waves and saw the tech demonstration precursor LISA Pathfinder blow all testing requirements out of the water within a day of setting up: The European Space Agency has formally greenlit the implementation of its ambitious Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) as a flagship "L-Class" mission. It will consist of three spacecraft, flying in a triangle formation several million kilometers apart, performing laser interferometry between each other with the goal of measuring gravitational waves. The incredible precision of this instrument will far outmatch anything that could ever be built on the curved surface of Earth. LIGO, our only currently operational gravitational wave detector, only has two beams with a few kilometers of distance to work with, by comparison. The mission is currently slated for launch in 2034. "Why so late?", I hear you ask. Well, it's simple, really: it's going to be ESA's third L-Class mission - and the first one hasn't even launched yet! Before LISA gets its turn, we will see the Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer (JUICE) in 2022, and the Advanced Telescope for High Energy Astrophysics (ATHENA) X-ray observatory in 2028. Also, keep in mind that ESA's budget is only roughly 1/4th that of NASA, and thus they can't quite pound out missions like these in rapid succession. Finally, ESA's plans for a gravitational wave observatory were delayed from an originally more aggressive timeline when the US congress made NASA pull out of a cooperation agreement in 2011. Without this delay, it might have gotten the 2028 slot. Now, while the two other L-Class missions are both impressive in their own right, the sheer ambition behind LISA cannot be overstated. It might be the most revolutionary mission that ESA has ever undertaken, and I am very pleased to see it move forward.
  6. Greetings all fellow space nerds and Kerbonauts, I am a passionate lover of all space related topics. From Astronomy of our local group of stars, until deep space Cosmology, since I was a kid I dreamed of participating in this amazing field of science. For that regard, I have dived into an Engineering career, specifically in electronics, having one year ago relocated myself to Belgium to work for a French aerospace company. Finally achieving my long-lasting goal, I feel now professionally fulfilled. But... (there is always a but...) Since now I have been integrated in the European space industry, instead of just being a spectator from the outside, I have come to understand a few issues with it. My background I am currently a Power Electronics design engineer and my responsibilities are to design analog and power electronic circuits to be used in space. For those not familiar with electronic design for space I can summarize it in four main activities: 1) Conceptualize a circuit given a certain set of specifications (not space specific); 2) Perform all kinds of analysis (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, Part Stress Analysis, Reliability Analysis, Worst Case Analysis, Corner Analysis, and the list goes on and on) (space specific) 3) Writing a plethora documentation that justifies every design decision taken (space specific) 4) Build, test and qualify your electronic module (not space specific) You probably begin to imagine that 2) and 3) takes up most of my time. For example, in the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis, given a circuit with thousands of components, I am in charge of analyzing the effect of a failure of one of those components in the whole circuit. And yes, this is done component-by-component. Of course, I don't mind doing this, as I am so in love with my job that time does really fly. The reputation However, even though all this analyzing effort, in the end we can still watch multiple times European made satellites and space probes fail, like for example: - Ariane 5 maiden flight, guidance software failure due to reuse of Ariane 4 design; - Beagle 2, failed to deploy solar panels; - Schiaparelli, failed to land; - Philae, landing harpoons failed and the thruster designed to keep it on the comet's surface failed to fire; - Galileo, multiple clock failures. You name it... To the point My point is: even though most of the time of a designer's job is to write justification documents - that few people read, and performing many detailed analysis - that no one will review, stuff still fails. I don't judge failures! Not at all. I admire and applaud Elon Musk and SpaceX, for going all-in with their launchers and trying things that many said were impossible. But looking at Europe what I am skeptic about is the over bureaucratization and conservationism of the European space industry. While SpaceX is taking huge risks, yet showing amazing progress, in the old continent I feel that space is a decaying over expensive failure fest, with no incredible life changing achievements. Ariane 6, for example, a rocket in development by Airbus was this week made redundant by the reusable Falcon 9 first stage. The pillars of the problem I have come to think of the problem more deeply and I have come to realize four factors that are slowing down space development in Europe: 1) Bureaucratic culture. Too much documentation and paper work. Designers should spend more time testing and trying new stuff, rather than writing boring documents and thinking about every possible failure, when in practice the failure will happen from something that theoretically is not predictable. 2) Conservative approach. Any reuse of an already used design in the past is broadly well received. Innovation is repressed and slowed down in order for the progress steps to be as small but "controllable" as possible. 3) Lack of Entrepreneurial mindset. For the general public and politicians, space is seen as a money sink and not as an opportunity to grow, explore and innovate. 4) Outdated standardization. Yes, I am looking at you “ECSS”. The consequences The consequences are obvious: - The technology used in space is largely outdated when compared to ground applications. This disincentives engineers to work in space due to the feeling of “working in the past”. - Some engineers frustrated with the innovation repressing culture do not feel motivated to have a career in the sector. - The bureaucratic nature of the performed work drives away the smartest engineers out of the sector. - With each failure, the credibility of the industry is little by little being degraded. Even if the culture of the industry would change, public and political opinion is still remarkably indifferent regarding space. Solutions Now the question must be asked: what can Europe, ESA and to a further extent the EU, should do to reverse this trend? TLDR Europe has endured a lot of failures despite efforts to standardize space design. Bureaucratic and conservative culture is repressing innovation in the sector and disincentivizing engineers to dedicate their careers. Politicians and the general public are indifferent to space. What should be done to reverse this trend
  7. Kertech

    Should ESA do more

    So ESA is building the "back end" (no idea why they give the service module that ridiculous name!!) which is great, and it's got some mars credentials and NEO satellites. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36343542 But should ESA be doing more? Europe (ESA members) have a combined economy greater than many more space faring nations, but seem reluctant to put any money into it! What should ESA do? Go it alone or collaborate (and listen) and how to get ESA more money??
  8. PB666

    Our GBH

    I was going to put this in cool sciency stuff, but . . . . . Heres a question, if a black hole is not exactly at the center of rotation of a galaxy, is it a polynary stellar system? sort of like alpha-centauri, except having a central star it has a central BH.
  9. http://spacenews.com/esa-members-give-space-agency-an-18-percent-budget-boost/ ESA's budget has recently been increased 18.4% to $5.71 Billion- an increase fuelled by increased investment by the European Commission, along with several European governments- especially Italy. One major area where this funding increase is concentrated in is the Galileo navigation satellite program, along with the Copernicous Earth Observation program- both of whom are owned by the European Commission (But operated by ESA). Thus, the increase in funding the Commission is giving to ESA is largely going to these two programs- which are in the manufacturing and deployment stages, and require the most money at this point. A 72% increase has also been given to ESA for "launchers"- most of which is going to fund the Vega-C and Ariane 6 projects. Italy and France, with majority stakes in the Vega-C and Ariane 6, respectively, have thus increased their funding of ESA by 55% and 18% repectively. However, with the concentration on Earth observation, navigation, and rocket development, some programs have still remained underfunded. One high-profile program is the ExoMars mission, a two part joint program with Rocosmos (the Russian Space Agency) with launches in 2016 and 2018. Woerner, the Director-General of ESA, has stated the 2018 may have to be delayed to 2020 to make up for the underfunding- though this will increase overall mission cost. This portion, which is at risk of delays, includes a lander and a rover being sent to Mars. This possible delay of ExoMars, if undertaken, would be due to ESA underfunding, not Rocosmos- Rocosmos has stated they do not have any delays on their side of the mission. ESA's ISS contributions are also at risk- Weorner has stated that he will do his utmost to convince his member governments to fund ESA's use of the ISS to 2024, from 2020. ESA members are sceduled to meet in December 2016 to determine their future role in the ISS. TL;DR: ESA has been given more money, but it's mostly to new rockets and Earth Observation and GPS-esque satellites. ExoMars may be delayed due to lack of funding, and ISS's ESA use to 2024 is being reviewed.
  10. How do we fill up the SLS 2021-2025 launch manifiest and launch once a year? Currently there are 2 (3 if including Asteroid Redirect Mission) planned SLS Missions for this time period- EM-2, a Manned Lunar Orbital mission, for 2021. SLS-Europa Clipper, a unmanned SLS probe launch, for 2025. and EM-3/ARM, a manned mission to a captured boulder orbiting the Moon, also for 2025. This leaves 2023 and 2022 without having any SLS launches (since 2025 is a year with 2 SLS launches. The next presidency will choose the ultimate near-term goal for the SLS-Orion Program, but the hardware required may not be developed in time- especially if it requires more new technology (like a Lunar Lander), compared to the currently favoured Lunar Space Station (which can be developed more quickly and its lessons are valuable for various deep-space destinations (including long-term habitation of the Moon). On the other hand, ESA is developing its own Jupiter Orbiter, Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer, or JUICE, to study Castillo, Europa, and Ganymede (later orbiting Ganymede). It is planned to launch in 2022, using a VEEGA gravity Assist trajectory to sling it to the Jupiter system. As a result, it would arrive in 2030, while Europa Clipper, which is just as complex, if not more (now that it has a lander, and needs to survive Jupiter's radiation belts) arrives in 2027, BEFORE the somewhat less risky Ganymede and Castillo-focused JUICE. If JUICE instead used the SLS Block IB (To be safe, as JUICE is about Five Tons mass, and SLS Block I can only carry up to 4.3 T to Jupiter on a direct trajectory- even a STAR motor may not be enough, and the situation would get worse if the proposed Russian Laplace-P lander is built and attached to JUICE, though unlikely due to Rocosmos' budget cuts) it could get to Jupiter by 2024, a transit time of 2 years. This is advantageous for more than just filling SLS' launch schedule: 1. If it arrives in 2034, JUICE can also use its few Europa flybys during its 3 year tour of the Jupiter system before Ganymede orbit insertion to give missions planners guidelines on where to flyby- currently, only the old Galileo probe produced data capable of doing this job. Not only are these measurements from old 70's-80's era probes (Galileo was delayed from a 1986 launch due to Challenger), Galileo also had to use its low-gain antenna, as its high-gain antenna did not deploy, meaning even less data for Europa mission planners to work with. Using JUICE for basic reconnaissance of Europan destinations would make Europan mission planners more confident in where they should flyby (even more important, since they have to set down a lander at a scientifically important place), not to mention wet the tongues of scientists and science nerds like. 2. The lower transit time means more science, as the components of the probe will not have to survive the approx. 6 extra years in deep space- meaning the critical components (like instruments and solar panels) will likely last longer, meaning more science overall! (Especially solar panels, which degrades under Jupiter's radiation belts, so you need them in tip top condition when they get there in the first place.) 3. Faster transit time also means faster science, allowing future missions to these icy moons to themselves take place earlier (if the budget allows it, or course. Castillo Orbiter anybody?). It's also better for scientists. There are disadvantages, though: 1. Higher Cost for launch (duh). Ariane V, the current JUICE launcher, costs $200 Million per launch, while the SLS Block I costs $500 million per launch (the Block IB is more costly, but cost per launch is unknown. Let's just say $700 Million. (Saturn V was about $1.5 Billion per launch, depending on the estimates) That's a 3.5 x greater cost per launch. 2. Less science from Venus and Asteroids, due to no Venus flybys on a direct trajectory to Jupiter, and only one pass through the asteroid belt via a direct trajectory, rather than 2 with VEEGA. 3. NASA would need to negotiate with ESA- they would need something in return for providing the free SLS launch. 4. Some planning and modifications to JUICE on ESA's side needs to be redone- however, this is likely not a huge issue, as JUICE is launching in 2022, 7 years into the future. Even if building the proposal, getting it approved, and the negotiation process takes 3 years, there are still 4 years to make changes to the probe- probably plenty of time. I propose that this SLS launch would be funded by having ESA build the now-required by Congress Europa Lander, while NASA gives ESA a free ride to Jupiter. So good idea or no? A poll has been set up for this tread.
  11. Over the years, there have been many proposals to give ESA its own Crew Launch Capability- something that (in my opinion) ESA may be closer to this capability than ever before (even closer than the Hermes Era). However, budgets are cramped (as expected), so my proposal attempts to make this as cheap as possible to develop: Note: things in BOLD are the baseline proposal. My proposal would use a minimal-modification ESA Orion Service module as the base (and service module), launching fully fueled on an Ariane V ECA or ES (or Ariane 6 w/ 4 SRBs)- all which have a payload capacity of 21T to LEO, (however, a burn of the Orion CM does the final, orbital insertion burn, along with rendezvous and deorbit burns). The other components, the Launch Escape System (LES) and the Command Module (CM) would be basically European-made clones of the Orion CM and LES, respectively. (Building these parts in the US, is also an option, but would probably be a lot less politically palatable). This would be used in a few flights to the ISS, before moving to a new, European Space Station, based of the Columbus MTFF proposal:http://www.astronautix.com/craft/colrmtff.htm but (ASSUMING INFINITE THE MONEY IS AVAILABLE) be built with a front docking port (which would have a node-like adapter with a total of 6 available berthing ports (2 with adapters for crewed spacecraft, 1 for cargo deliveries, 1 by the connection to the Columbus Module, and 2 ports used by the airlock and an unpressurized experiments bay). Its crewed module would be a modernized Columbus module of the ISS, and use a Orion SM as its service module, located at the space station's aft (but with larger solar arrays and with radiators), which is also used for re-boosts (along with the crewed ESA-Orion and Cargo Vehicle) and life support. This space station (I call it the MTFF-2) would be launched fully fueled by a single, expendable Falcon Heavy (the MTFF-2 being 53T in mass)- in the case of mass overruns, the fuel would be launched separately, in cargo spacecraft. The Cargo Deliveries would be done by a newly-produced ATV, by a Progress Spacecraft (both which would require adapters to dock to the space station) or by a Cygnus. One question, despite all this would be if it could be funded. If S*** hits the fan, the ESA Crewed Spacecraft would be used for SpaceLab-like Science missions, with unpressurized science experiments located between the spacecraft adapter jettisoned panels and the Service Module. If money is somewhat more available however, the MTFF-2 would launch, but lack the node, airlock, unpressurized experiment bay (they would have to be carried next to the Orion SM if needed), only one docking port, and no cargo resupply vessels, and the space station would instead launch on a Reusable Falcon Heavy. THIS IS MY BASELINE PROPOSAL. Good, Dumb, or Impossible? Comment below!