European Space Agency (ESA) Thread

[RCgothic]

Apparently we don't have a dedicated thread for the European Space Agency (ESA).

Some news that I'm sure has been covered in the Arianespace thread is a brewing rift among European Partners over the future of Europe's Launch Capability and the woes of Ariane 6 and Vega C:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/ariane-6-cost-and-delays-bring-european-launch-industry-to-a-breaking-point/amp/

There's also news about a new programme to source a European capsule for which ESA will be the anchor customer to debut in 2028.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67339057.amp

One of the competing concepts is Exploration Company's Nyx capsule:

And the Argo concept from Rocket Factory Ausberg:

The Seville meeting also opened up the Zero Debris Charter for signatories.

"This encourages everyone operating in space to leave behind no hardware that might collide with operational missions.

The UK, one of the big four nations in Esa, will be introducing a new regulatory framework early next year that aims to promote good behaviour and foster a market for services that remove trash from orbit.

"We want to reward compliant operators," said UK science minister George Freeman.

"If you're bringing back what you put up, if you're doing in-flight servicing and not contributing to space debris - we're going to give you faster licensing, better insurance and quicker access to finance," he told BBC News."

Edited November 7, 2023 by RCgothic

[RCgothic]

Europe determines to source their next-gen launchers through a NASA-style competitive commercial procurement process:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/after-the-sting-of-ariane-6-europe-finally-embraces-commercial-rockets/amp/

 

[Spaceception]

Sounds like good news, looking forward to seeing what comes out of it. I actually saw a concept for a reusable Ariane 5 successor (Ariane X) that looks a lot like Stoke's Nova/Bono's Rhombus, but scaled to take over Ariane 5 operations earlier today. A shame it never got developed, but maybe similar concepts could get their chance to see the light of day again? Especially with the pressure the US private industry is creating.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Spaceception
Forgot to include its name

[tater]

 

[Exoscientist]

It looks like ESA is transitioning away from ArianeSpace being the sole provider for European space flight so I’m writing this here rather than the ArianeSpace thread:

 

ESA Publishes Call for Reusable Rocket Booster Concepts
By Andrew Parsonson - February 10, 2024
The phrasing of “liquid reusable booster” and the fact that the programme will potentially be aimed at existing launch systems suggests that this may be part of an Ariane 6 evolution. If this is not one of the direct aims of the initiative, ArianeGroup will certainly be in a position to utilize BEST! as a means to fund, at least partially, the transfer of the knowledge gained during the ongoing development of the reusable booster demonstrator Themis to an evolved Ariane 6 variant.
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-publishes-call-for-reusable-rocket-booster-concepts/

 This is great news for European space flight. I find it quite notable the author of this article on the new ESA push for reusability is asserting that it may involve an evolution of the Ariane 6. This is important, for if it is to be reusable then the solid SRB’s must be dispensed with. Now, it is possible such an evolution would involve the methane-fueled Prometheus engine. But in my opinion, using a completely different engine with even different propellant should not be regarded as an evolution of the Ariane 6. It would be an evolution of the Ariane 6 to reusability if using the same hydrogen-fueled Vulcain engines but not using the SRB’s.

Quite key for these new launcher developments is to follow the SpaceX model of private financing for the launchers. That way 90% of the development costs can be saved: a mid-sized orbital launcher can be developed for only a few hundred million development cost, not the billion dollars thought necessary when such launchers were government financed. See discussion here:

Towards Every European Country's Own Crewed Spaceflight, Page 2: saved costs and time using already developed, operational engines.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/01/towards-every-european-countrys-own.html

 The key, and most controversial, points there:

1.)Any European country can field their own, independent, manned flight capable launcher in under 2 years, IF they design it around already developed and operational engines.

2.)By eliminating the two SRB’s on the Ariane 6, and instead adding 1 or 2 additional Vulcain engines on the core stage, ArianeSpace can field such a launcher in less than a year.

3.)In any case, such a manned flight capable launcher by following the commercial space approach spear-headed by SpaceX could be developed for less than $200 million, assuming they didn’t have to pay engine development costs by using already operational engines.

 

  Bob Clark

 

[SunlitZelkova]

7 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

1.)Any European country can field their own, independent, manned flight capable launcher in under 2 years, IF they design it around already developed and operational engines.

I’m highly skeptical of this claim. There are only two crewed spacecraft ever designed and flown in two years- Vostok and Mercury. Gemini was designed from roughly ‘62 and flew in ‘64 but without crew.

All three of these were barebones spacecraft. They were capable for orbital training flights but not useful 21st century space ops, that is, space station ops.

Useful spacecraft have a much longer genesis- Soyuz (1963-1967 for first crewed flight), Apollo (1961-1968), Space Shuttle (1972-1981), Crew Dragon began development in 2011 and didn’t fly with crew until 2020, Starliner still hasn’t flown with crew, and Orion started in ~2006 or so and also still hasn’t flown with crew.

Note that Starliner and Orion use existing engines, assuming you refer to launch vehicle difficulties, but if you mean the spacecraft engines, Orion uses tech from both the ATV and the AJ-10 (I think that’s the designation for the main engine… correct me if wrong) but still took until 2022 to fly, and still hasn’t carried crew. Not sure what Starliner uses.

I think the biggest issue with spaceflight timelines is taking into account institutional and economic factors. I’d say 5-10 years is a better estimate than trying to pinpoint a number, especially when it’s a number below 5.

What makes you think European companies will be interested in building a crewed spacecraft? A European astronaut literally just flew on an American commercial flight. This theoretically could replace reliance on NASA flights and fulfill Europe’s desire for a post-ISS space station expeditionary capability.

I hate to say this, but I feel like the only way a European crewed launcher ever made sense was in the 1960s, if Britain had tried to develop its own crewed spaceflight using the Lipstick Rocket (I forget the name). By the 1980s and onward, Europe fell into what I call the “Soyuz dilemma”- why build your own government launcher when you can buy launches from someone else? It’s part of why Orion never became an ISS transport vehicle like it was originally intended to. The supplier just changed from Russia to America’s budding private spaceflight industry (really just SpaceX TBH).

But Europe doesn’t have a budding private spaceflight industry, for a few reasons-

1. Lack of demand from the military. Europe doesn’t launch as many satellites as the US does. Europe might be third in satellite reconnaissance capabilities but their bar on a graph is like a centimeter and the US and China are a decimeter.

2. Lack of demand from private industry. It is my understanding that European telecom companies just have old school constellations of 10-20 satellites. There is no interest in building a Starlink level constellation, which is really the Holy Grail of building a space economy. It’s what’s driving reusable launcher development in China, and although they are a decade behind Starlink and F9, they will get there. Europe won’t because no companies are interested in a Starlink like endeavor, and that’s probably because of reason three.

3. Europe just isn’t that big, because it’s not a real country. It’s a bunch of countries loosely affiliated. France, Poland, Italy- you name the place- do not need a giant Starlink level constellation to provide internet service across a continent, because even Europe itself isn’t that big of a continent. China and the US and big of course, AND have a huge population to go with that land. Contrast with Russia which is more sparsely populated and wouldn’t need a Starlink constellation either.

4. Europe doesn’t have a global footprint. Especially its navies are limited to operations in the Atlantic. Contrast this with the US and China which desire to be globe spanning in reach, and thus need something like Starlink for internet anywhere anytime.

5. Lack of political interest and the prestige factor. Do Europeans feel pride in the Union in the same way Americans and Chinese feel pride in their respective countries? Do politicians feel that way, or is it a matter of convenience? A desire to be seen as a global power is what drives space development in China, and after the “spinoff” and “science” days of 1980-2019ish, NASA is very focused on the image of power too (or at least the politicians who fund it are, which is why the Moon gotten chosen as a goal). In contrast, European attempts to carve out a place in the world like that don’t hold a lot of gravity. Europe is still very much an American partner.

6. Economic factor. Europe is just small. Arianespace doesn’t even seem to have skin in the game, so you have private companies in individual countries competing? China’s GDP is 17 trillion $ and America’s is 26 trillion $. In contrast, Germany, where Rocket Factory Augsburg hails from, has a GDP of 4 trillion $. Now I know these are private companies competing, but realistically a company from a country with 1/4 of the GDP of China and 1/6 of the GDP of the US is not going to have the capital to put out rockets like SpaceX does, and they are not going to put out satellites like Starlink does. Heck, or like China does for that matter (they launch a lot of expendable rockets).

Those are two things necessary for a reusable launcher to be worth the development and flight cost. Remember the Shuttle? It wasn’t economical because it flew so little. SpaceX flies a lot and so they can lower their prices per launch. A European launcher won’t have the demand to be economical or worth development.

*deep breath*

On a final note in jest, maybe a European reusable launcher could viably compete with the US… if the US and China fought a nuclear and space war, eliminating most of the world’s satellites as well as SpaceX.

[tater]

5 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

assuming you refer to launch vehicle difficulties,

He said launcher.

So you'd need to make a crew-rated LV inside of 2 years. No idea how long crew-rating takes, the problem is (as you underline), they have no crew vehicle.

[SunlitZelkova]

49 minutes ago, tater said:

He said launcher.

Yeah, I meant to say launcher but typed fast.

51 minutes ago, tater said:

So you'd need to make a crew-rated LV inside of 2 years. No idea how long crew-rating takes, the problem is (as you underline), they have no crew vehicle.

I'm not familiar with the development of Crew Dragon, but counting the parts of the program that involved readying F9 Blk 5 vs. the delays encountered with Dragon might give an estimate.

But really, a development timeline similar to Crew Dragon is super optimistic. SpaceX has the best talent in the US behind its stuff. I hate to compare countries this way again, but are Germany or Italy putting out engineers at the same rate as the US? Where are the teams of specialists needed to build and maintain crewed capability going to come from?

It kinda reminds me of a line from the movie Ford vs. Ferrari. Ford made as many cars in a day as Ferrari made in a year in 1964. There are personnel and capital needed to maintain that capability.

On paper, European nations or private companies could probably build a reusable rocket and crew vehicle. A reusable rocket and crew vehicle. But there is no demand to keep up production of multiples that make the cost worth it, both for the producer and consumer.

P.S. Part of the reason the USSR had so many failures in the late 60s and early 70s was that their design bureaus were taxed the limit with work on missiles, launch vehicles, probes, the lunar program, the orbital Soyuz, and later Salyut. It didn't help that Brezhnev stripped engineers of their protection from being drafted into the armed forces. I feel like Europe would have a similar problem trying to build a reusable rocket and crew launcher in one go (satellites-reusable launcher-existing expendables-new crew vehicle+competing with more attractive careers), which is why I am so skeptical of his 2 years claim.

[StrandedonEarth]

41 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

design bureaus were taxed the limit with work on missiles, launch vehicles, probes, the lunar program, the orbital Soyuz, and later Salyut.

And Venera…

[Exoscientist]

9 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I'm not familiar with the development of Crew Dragon, but counting the parts of the program that involved readying F9 Blk 5 vs. the delays encountered with Dragon might give an estimate.

But really, a development timeline similar to Crew Dragon is super optimistic. SpaceX has the best talent in the US behind its stuff. I hate to compare countries this way again, but are Germany or Italy putting out engineers at the same rate as the US? Where are the teams of specialists needed to build and maintain crewed capability going to come from?

 ESA  has put out a call for a commercial cargo capsule:

ESA to start commercial cargo program
Jeff Foust
November 6, 2023
https://spacenews.com/esa-to-start-commercial-cargo-program/

 They discuss they want a crew capsule to be developed also as a follow up to the cargo capsule. The cargo capsule is expected to be ready by 2027 to 2028.

 The Maia launcher of MaiaSpace is a Falcon 1 class vehicle using the Prometheus methane-fueled engine. It is expected to make its first test launch in 2025. Now, consider this: the low cost approach to development of SpaceX is well known now, cutting 90% off development costs. Not generally appreciated though is the SpaceX rapid development approach. They went from the first successful test launch of the Falcon 1 in 2008 to the first launch of the Falcon 9 only two years later in 2010.

Then I advise MaiaSpace not just emulate the low cost private financing approach of SpaceX but also follow their rapid development approach. If the Maia is successfully launched in 2025, then an upgraded Falcon 9 class version could be ready and launched two years later in 2027. This will be about the time when the cargo capsules will be ready.

One more suggestion. SpaceX and now multiple other space startups have shown privately financed launchers can be developed at 1/10th the cost of the usual government financed approach. But SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, now Orbital ATK, showed also with their Dragon and Cygnus cargo capsules respectively, that cargo capsules can also be developed by the private financing approach at 1/10th the cost of the government financed ones, for only a few hundred million dollars.

 But when SpaceX developed the crew Dragon they took funding from NASA. Suddenly, the development costs ballooned to the billion dollar range. I’m saying it’s because NASA was paying for it that the development costs grew that high. A crew capsule instead following the private financing approach also can be developed at costs in the few hundred million dollars range. 

 Then my suggestion to the European companies developing the cargo capsules is to follow the private financing approach of SpaceX, and also concurrently develop crew capsules privately financed. They each can be developed at costs at the few hundred million dollars range. Then both cargo capsules and crew capsules can be developed by the time when MaiaSpace can have a crew capable launcher ready by 2027.

 I believe Europe has well enough technical knowledge to advance their own launchers and capsules. The Ariane 5 for many years was the leading launcher for commercial satellites. It was supplanted by the Falcon 9 because SpaceX took the low cost private financing approach and focused on reusability. Europe is now recognizing that is the way to cut costs. My opinion, the new European start ups focusing on the commercial space approach and on reusability will be competitive to the Falcon 9.

 Note also in regards to capsules, the Cygnus capsule was actually built in Italy by Thales Alenia.

  Bob Clark

 

Edited February 11 by Exoscientist
Added comments on European competitiveness in the space industry

[tater]

6 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 But when SpaceX developed the crew Dragon they took funding from NASA. Suddenly, the development costs ballooned to the billion dollar range. I’m saying it’s because NASA was paying for it that the development costs grew that high. A crew capsule instead following the private financing approach also can be developed at costs in the few hundred million dollars range. 

This is possibly true, though I have seen (maybe it was Shotwell?) someone saying that the COTS dev/mission costs were higher internally than SpaceX anticipated which might have something to do with them asking for more for Commercial Crew—and they still bid a fraction of what Boeing did.

It's important to remember that they built Dragon with the idea of converting it to crew, then got operational experience using it, and REUSING it, which heavily informed the Crew Dragon. Skipping the reusable cargo vehicle phase would probably increase dev cost, and schedule. I'd wager their dev cost would be well over €1B.

[SunlitZelkova]

On 2/11/2024 at 1:30 AM, Exoscientist said:

One more suggestion. SpaceX and now multiple other space startups have shown privately financed launchers can be developed at 1/10th the cost of the usual government financed approach. But SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, now Orbital ATK, showed also with their Dragon and Cygnus cargo capsules respectively, that cargo capsules can also be developed by the private financing approach at 1/10th the cost of the government financed ones, for only a few hundred million dollars.

 But when SpaceX developed the crew Dragon they took funding from NASA. Suddenly, the development costs ballooned to the billion dollar range. I’m saying it’s because NASA was paying for it that the development costs grew that high. A crew capsule instead following the private financing approach also can be developed at costs in the few hundred million dollars range.

This logical doesn’t track with me. Dragon 1 and Cygnus were government funded too under the COTS program. So then SpaceX just suddenly decided to pull a Boeing and ask for more money than necessary during Commercial Crew?

No. I think it is far more likely it is just expensive to send humans into space.

What you’re saying is like saying that we should be able to send humans to the Moon in a barebones manner for the same amount of money as CLPS.

Also, where do these “1/10th the cost” and “90% cost reduction” estimates come from? Is that actually the amount SpaceX paid, or is it what NASA paid?

As far as launch vehicle development goes, you are forgetting Musk was able to continue funding SpaceX after initial failures with money from Tesla (or whatever endeavors he had at the time, I don’t remember off the top of my head).

I was going to say “MaiaSpace doesn’t have this”… but wow. As I’m reading about it, I’m now learning they are more or less a division of ArianeGroup, and it was created to keep jobs in Vernon, France. So not only does it have origins akin to SLS, but it is also saddled with the culture of the people who are building Ariane 6.

I have 0% confidence in this company’s ability to bring something to the table. This feels more like Europe’s Space Exploration Initiative rather than COTS or Commercial Crew.

But that’s just with MaiaSpace.

On 2/11/2024 at 1:30 AM, Exoscientist said:

I believe Europe has well enough technical knowledge to advance their own launchers and capsules. The Ariane 5 for many years was the leading launcher for commercial satellites. It was supplanted by the Falcon 9 because SpaceX took the low cost private financing approach and focused on reusability. Europe is now recognizing that is the way to cut costs. My opinion, the new European start ups focusing on the commercial space approach and on reusability will be competitive to the Falcon 9.

I’ll say it again: I’m skeptical. Having a history with an expendable launcher just makes it worse. There’s an American organization with oldspace managers who have “experience” with expendable launchers. They’re called Blue Origin and haven’t launched anything to orbit yet despite setting out to do so long, long ago.

[Exoscientist]

On 2/10/2024 at 10:01 AM, Exoscientist said:

ESA Publishes Call for Reusable Rocket Booster Concepts
By Andrew Parsonson - February 10, 2024
The phrasing of “liquid reusable booster” and the fact that the programme will potentially be aimed at existing launch systems suggests that this may be part of an Ariane 6 evolution. If this is not one of the direct aims of the initiative, ArianeGroup will certainly be in a position to utilize BEST! as a means to fund, at least partially, the transfer of the knowledge gained during the ongoing development of the reusable booster demonstrator Themis to an evolved Ariane 6 variant.
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-publishes-call-for-reusable-rocket-booster-concepts/

 This is great news for European space flight. I find it quite notable the author of this article on the new ESA push for reusability is asserting that it may involve an evolution of the Ariane 6. This is important, for if it is to be reusable then the solid SRB’s must be dispensed with. Now, it is possible such an evolution would involve the methane-fueled Prometheus engine. But in my opinion, using a completely different engine with even different propellant should not be regarded as an evolution of the Ariane 6. It would be an evolution of the Ariane 6 to reusability if using the same hydrogen-fueled Vulcain engines but not using the SRB’s.

 Rereading that article by Andrew Parsonson. I think he is referring to the methane-fueled Ariane Next program, not a supposed all hydrolox-Vulcain engine version.

 But interestingly, such a methane-fueled launcher might cost 50% that of the Ariane 6, and thus be competitive with the Falcon 9 prices:

 

  Bob Clark

[tater]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Also, where do these “1/10th the cost” and “90% cost reduction” estimates come from? Is that actually the amount SpaceX paid, or is it what NASA paid?

The internal NASA cost calculator used for years apparently predicts dev costs that are literally about 10X higher than what SpaceX actually spent on given projects.

44 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 But interestingly, such a methane-fueled launcher might cost 50% that of the Ariane 6, and thus be competitive with the Falcon 9 prices:

At which point F9 might be really expensive relative to fully reusable launchers. Stoke has the right idea. A "fast follower" at this long needs to go for full reuse—booster reuse is now a slow follower, New Glenn would have been a not-so-fast follower had it launched in 2020 as planned. Being competitive with 2024 F9 prices in 2034 is not really a win.

[Exoscientist]

The ESA programs Andrew Parsonson wrote about described here:

  

 They are taking suggestions for how to accomplish them.

 

  Bob Clark

 

 

  

Edited February 13 by Exoscientist

[Exoscientist]

On 2/10/2024 at 7:24 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

On paper, European nations or private companies could probably build a reusable rocket and crew vehicle. A reusable rocket and crew vehicle. But there is no demand to keep up production of multiples that make the cost worth it, both for the producer and consumer.

 

 ESA appears now to have a serious aim of progressing to manned spaceflight:

ESA Astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti to Lead Agency’s LEO Cargo Return Initiative
By Andrew Parsonson -
February 8, 2024
In a LinkedIn post published on 7 February, Cristoforetti explained that while her dreams to become an astronaut, participate in a spacewalk, and serve as Commander of the International Space Station had all come true, one big dream remained.
“I dream of Europe having its own spaceship, like the US, Russia, China, and soon, India,” wrote Cristoforetti. “I dream of international crews flying to space not only on private US vehicles but also on European ones.”
Cristoforetti went on to explain that she had been given the opportunity to be a part of fulfilling this dream by leading the team implementing the LEO Cargo Return Service initiative.
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-astronaut-samantha-cristoforetti-to-lead-agencys-leo-cargo-return-initiative/

 

  Robert Clark

[tater]

7 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 ESA appears now to have a serious aim of progressing to manned spaceflight:

How can their news report this without reporting the actual budget line item? Without knowing the financial commitment, it's hard to tell if it is serious. Millions to hundreds of millions? They are funding paper studies. Billions? OK, they're serious.

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

ESA appears now to have a serious aim of progressing to manned spaceflight:

They have only issued calls for concepts so far. No actual contracts or anything. It might as well be less serious than Hermes.

[Exoscientist]

On 2/13/2024 at 4:20 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

They have only issued calls for concepts so far. No actual contracts or anything. It might as well be less serious than Hermes.

 

 So far three companies seem to be in the lead for the European cargo capsule, the Nyx capsule leading in its development.

 The Exploration Company was already well into development of their Nyx cargo capsule before the ESA announcement. They plan to launch a 20% scale version on the Falcon 9 this year, with a full scale version to be launched in 2026:

News
European startup gets $44 million for space station transportation vehicles
Jason Rainbow
February 2, 2023
https://spacenews.com/european-startup-gets-44-million-for-space-station-transportation-vehicles/

 If the launch in 2026 succeeds, I think there is little doubt a crewed capsule development will follow. Keep in mind my thesis is a manned capsule can be developed at a few hundred million dollar range as can a cargo capsule IF following the private funding commercial space approach.

 The cargo capsules being considered by ESA will have heat shields. Delivering cargo to a space station the cargo capsules will also already have thermal control: when opening the capsule you don’t want space station crew exposed to freezing cold air after the cargo craft is in space for days. Then as far as environmental control for a manned version you just need to add CO2 scrubbers and seating. 

 Then additionally you need to add the launch escape system. The cost for such a pressure-fed rocket system, well less than a full size orbital rocket, would probably be in the tens of million dollars range as privately financed by the commercial space approach.  As a point of comparison the development of the Falcon 1 an actual orbital rocket was only about $90 million by following the private financing commercial space approach which included the development cost of the Merlin engine, a more advanced pump-fed engine then the pressure fed Superdracos.

  Bob Clark

Edited February 15 by Exoscientist
Emphasized Falcon 1 was developed at such low cost because it followed the privately financed commercial space approach.

[tater]

1 hour ago, Exoscientist said:

European startup gets $44 million for space station transportation vehicles

Dynetics got $253M from NASA to submit a final HLS proposal that didn't even close dv wise.

So that $44M should buy them about 18% of the number of pages the Dynetics proposal is. How many $ per page of "not hardware" will that buy?

[tater]

 

[Exoscientist]

On 2/11/2024 at 4:30 AM, Exoscientist said:

 ESA  has put out a call for a commercial cargo capsule:

ESA to start commercial cargo program
Jeff Foust
November 6, 2023
https://spacenews.com/esa-to-start-commercial-cargo-program/

 They discuss they want a crew capsule to be developed also as a follow up to the cargo capsule. The cargo capsule is expected to be ready by 2027 to 2028.

 The Maia launcher of MaiaSpace is a Falcon 1 class vehicle using the Prometheus methane-fueled engine. It is expected to make its first test launch in 2025. Now, consider this: the low cost approach to development of SpaceX is well known now, cutting 90% off development costs. Not generally appreciated though is the SpaceX rapid development approach. They went from the first successful test launch of the Falcon 1 in 2008 to the first launch of the Falcon 9 only two years later in 2010.

Then I advise MaiaSpace not just emulate the low cost private financing approach of SpaceX but also follow their rapid development approach. If the Maia is successfully launched in 2025, then an upgraded Falcon 9 class version could be ready and launched two years later in 2027. This will be about the time when the cargo capsules will be ready.

One more suggestion. SpaceX and now multiple other space startups have shown privately financed launchers can be developed at 1/10th the cost of the usual government financed approach. But SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, now Orbital ATK, showed also with their Dragon and Cygnus cargo capsules respectively, that cargo capsules can also be developed by the private financing approach at 1/10th the cost of the government financed ones, for only a few hundred million dollars.

 But when SpaceX developed the crew Dragon they took funding from NASA. Suddenly, the development costs ballooned to the billion dollar range. I’m saying it’s because NASA was paying for it that the development costs grew that high. A crew capsule instead following the private financing approach also can be developed at costs in the few hundred million dollars range. 

 Then my suggestion to the European companies developing the cargo capsules is to follow the private financing approach of SpaceX, and also concurrently develop crew capsules privately financed. They each can be developed at costs at the few hundred million dollars range. Then both cargo capsules and crew capsules can be developed by the time when MaiaSpace can have a crew capable launcher ready by 2027.

 I believe Europe has well enough technical knowledge to advance their own launchers and capsules. The Ariane 5 for many years was the leading launcher for commercial satellites. It was supplanted by the Falcon 9 because SpaceX took the low cost private financing approach and focused on reusability. Europe is now recognizing that is the way to cut costs. My opinion, the new European start ups focusing on the commercial space approach and on reusability will be competitive to the Falcon 9.

 Note also in regards to capsules, the Cygnus capsule was actually built in Italy by Thales Alenia.

  Bob Clark

 

 Looks like India will have the next manned space program, beating the Europeans:

 

  Bob Clark

Edited February 27 by Exoscientist

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

Looks like India will have the next manned space program, beating the Europeans:

Europe was never going to beat India. India got started 15-20 years ago, Europe is only looking at concepts. Europe isn't even in the game so it can't really be said they were "beaten"- they weren't even competing.

[Exoscientist]

On 2/12/2024 at 4:55 PM, Exoscientist said:

The ESA programs Andrew Parsonson wrote about described here:

  

 

  

 The first listed call for proposals called THRUST! seeks proposals for staged combustion engines. But in point of fact altitude compensation can accomplish the same thing at far lower cost:

Altitude compensation is more efficient than staged-combustion engines.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/02/altitude-compensation-is-more-efficient.html

  Bob Clark

[AckSed]

Two pieces of news in one, here: first, ESA is building a lunar simulation facility in Germany; second, the lunar gravity simulator is essentially springs on strings, but upgraded to the "Puppeteer" system for greater accuracy and possibly simulating Mars or other gravities: https://payloadspace.com/esa-astronauts-get-new-tech-for-moonwalking-practice/

Call me mad, but this sounds like damn good fun, especially as they plan on a rig not just for people, but for vehicles too.