Why ESA hasn't manned space program since they have rocket ESA

[Pawelk198604]

Why ESA hasn't manned space program since they have rocket ESA

[bsalis]

I dunno. At least they are not fighting each other.

[jfx]

- Because they don't see significant schientific value in it.

- Transportation to the ISS can be aquired cheaper with Sojus

- Member countrys won't pay for a purely "prestige" project.

[TouhouTorpedo]

Cost. Building a rocket is one thing, building a man rated system is another. The ammount of red-tape for ESA to do -anything- is insane, and by the time they've done it, normally something or other has become irelevant or bloated in some way or another.

They have done some studies on converting the Supply vehicle to be a manned vehicle, but thats not really gone anywhere.

[Kryten]

Not enough money, basically. They've actually tried a few times; the first attempt (Hermes) was cancelled after cost overruns and major delays; then they tried a couple of projects in co-operation with Russia (Kliper and CSTS), both of which basically ran out of money, then they decided to build one based on the ATV, but 2008 hit and they ran out of money again.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Kryten
Tags were broken

[Nibb31]

It's not so much about money, but about political will. There is always some inside fighting about which country should be in charge of each program. France controls most of Ariane, Germany and Italy are mostly in charge of ATV. And these projects are part of international negociations that handled by politicians. It would be better if the governments just allocated general funds and let the experts at ESA decide on where the funds go.

The other problem is destination. The ISS will be reaching its end of life in 2020, with no planned replacement. It takes at least 10 years to design and build a new spacecraft, so by the time ESA has a manned spacecraft, it will have nowhere to go. Building a new space station or a deep-space spacecraft are beyond ESA's budget.

Ariane was designed to be man-rated for Hermes, so there should actually be very little work to use it for manned launches. ATV is a pressurized automated spacecraft with a modular design, which means that the components could actually be used as a service module for a manned spacecraft (See http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEMNFZOR4CF_0.html). The only part missing is a re-entry capsule (and ground infrastructure, of course. A new launchpad would be required). There have been several studies going for unmanned reentry spacecraft (ARD, IXV, Hermes...), so ESA certainly does have the capability.

Ironically, there seems to be negociations between NASA and ESA about using the ATV as a basis for Orion's service module.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Nibb31

[Pawelk198604]

It's not so much about money, but about political will. There is always some inside fighting about which country should be in charge of each program. France controls most of Ariane, Germany and Italy are mostly in charge of ATV. And these projects are part of international negociations that handled by politicians. It would be better if the governments just allocated general funds and let the experts at ESA decide on where the funds go.

The other problem is destination. The ISS will be reaching its end of life in 2020, with no planned replacement. It takes at least 10 years to design and build a new spacecraft, so by the time ESA has a manned spacecraft, it will have nowhere to go. Building a new space station or a deep-space spacecraft are beyond ESA's budget.

Ariane was designed to be man-rated for Hermes, so there should actually be very little work to use it for manned launches. ATV is a pressurized automated spacecraft with a modular design, which means that the components could actually be used as a service module for a manned spacecraft (See http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEMNFZOR4CF_0.html). The only part missing is a re-entry capsule (and ground infrastructure, of course. A new launchpad would be required). There have been several studies going for unmanned reentry spacecraft (ARD, IXV, Hermes...), so ESA certainly does have the capability.

Ironically, there seems to be negociations between NASA and ESA about using the ATV as a basis for Orion's service module.

Here's what I mean, the French built a rocket Ariane, I wonder if it could not be used to to launch a manned capsule. So far, no European country apart from Russia, does not have a manned space program, so why ESA nobody sent into orbit.

[Nibb31]

Why? Because of money and politics and lack of interest. A better way to answer your question would be with another question: why should ESA spend billions to develop a manned spacecraft when they can hitch a ride on Soyuz or Orion and spend their money on other stuff ?

[Kryten]

Ariane was designed from the start to carry a manned craft, Hermes, but it got cancelled for budgetary reasons. ESA generally sees itself as an agency dedicated to doing science relatively on-the-cheap, something not really compatible with manned flight, and their funding reflects it.

[Borklund]

The politics of austerity affects the space industry too - member states just aren't willing to sink more into ESA. It would take a lot more to get a wholly ESA built, manned and operated spacecraft into orbit or beyond and that is clearly not going to happen in today's climate. No politician or public will advocate for it. I for one am looking to push my government toward small robotic exploration. A chinese-style Chang'e project would not be inconceivable even for Sweden. We have a spaceport in Kiruna that will definitely see more use when (not if) private spaceflight to LEO becomes more and more commonplace, and some of the profits from that activity could go to building a teeny tiny Swedish moon lander/rover. Complimentary secondary payloads could be a requirement for some launches, and could be used for Swedish student and private enterprise projects.

[Pawelk198604]

The politics of austerity affects the space industry too - member states just aren't willing to sink more into ESA. It would take a lot more to get a wholly ESA built, manned and operated spacecraft into orbit or beyond and that is clearly not going to happen in today's climate. No politician or public will advocate for it. I for one am looking to push my government toward small robotic exploration. A chinese-style Chang'e project would not be inconceivable even for Sweden. We have a spaceport in Kiruna that will definitely see more use when (not if) private spaceflight to LEO becomes more and more commonplace, and some of the profits from that activity could go to building a teeny tiny Swedish moon lander/rover. Complimentary secondary payloads could be a requirement for some launches, and could be used for Swedish student and private enterprise projects.

My Country, Poland also once ran its own rocket program it was under communist rule.

Unfortunately, it did not like the Soviet Union and the program was canceled because they wanted to maintain a monopoly on space, one wonders just why it not resumed, so far as Poland is in no way dependent on Russia.

Poland is not a rich country but investment in space can have an astronomical rate of return, if you know what I mean :-)

Japan was once a relatively poor country, and now the economy of Japan is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, thanks to the Japan, used the economic boom in the Electronic.

Now slowly start to develop commercial space transport industry, any investment in his industries that will be paid to a hundred times.

[Borklund]

My Country, Poland also once ran its own rocket program it was under communist rule.

Unfortunately, it did not like the Soviet Union and the program was canceled because they wanted to maintain a monopoly on space, one wonders just why it not resumed, so far as Poland is in no way dependent on Russia.

Poland is not a rich country but investment in space can have an astronomical rate of return, if you know what I mean :-)

Japan was once a relatively poor country, and now the economy of Japan is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, thanks to the Japan, used the economic boom in the Electronic.

Now slowly start to develop commercial space transport industry, any investment in his industries that will be paid to a hundred times.

I know exactly what you mean! Unfortunately, spending millions, maybe billions of euros (or kronor or any other currency for that matter) in space right now is not an easy argument at all. I can't remember where I found this link, it might have been on this forum, but I thought I should share it with you anyway.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth.

Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?"

[Pawelk198604]

I know exactly what you mean! Unfortunately, spending millions, maybe billions of euros (or kronor or any other currency for that matter) in space right now is not an easy argument at all. I can't remember where I found this link, it might have been on this forum, but I thought I should share it with you anyway.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth.

Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?"

Read that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(rocket)

[EndlessWaves]

Japan was once a relatively poor country, and now the economy of Japan is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, thanks to the Japan, used the economic boom in the Electronic.

Now slowly start to develop commercial space transport industry, any investment in his industries that will be paid to a hundred times.

NASA has been doing it for fifty years and has spend hundreds of thousands of millions on it and hasn't gotten rich yet.

The way to get rich is to know when to invest and when to cut your losses. Invest a little in things that might turn out right and only invest more if there's a clear development path ahead. Run your economics by ideology alone and you end up like Russia.

I'm not expert on the space industry but right now there seems no clear way to dramatically cut costs so you'd invest a little in space elevator research, a little in skylon, and a little in other promising projects and save the hundreds of millions of investments until the prototypes start flying.

[Borklund]

NASA has been doing it for fifty years and has spend hundreds of thousands of millions on it and hasn't gotten rich yet.

What are you talking about? The sixties and seventies saw an explosion in wealth in America. Countless thousands of jobs have been created thanks to NASA's endeavours. Just listing the many spinoffs is boring, but just think for a minute about the inspiration for the whole sci-fi genre, to name one example. You can't put a price tag on that.

[Nibb31]

Those were jobs were created because of massive government spending (which proves why government spending is sometimes a GOOD thing). However, Apollo was only possible because America was at the peak of it's economical growth. It was not Apollo that caused the economical growth.

Unfortunately, there is no money to be made in human spaceflight (other than the launch business for government programs). If there was, then people would already be making money.

[mustwinfull]

Those were jobs were created because of massive government spending (which proves why government spending is sometimes a GOOD thing). However, Apollo was only possible because America was at the peak of it's economical growth. It was not Apollo that caused the economical growth.

Unfortunately, there is no money to be made in human spaceflight (other than the launch business for government programs). If there was, then people would already be making money.

So making money is the basis for everything we do? We explored the world without thinking it was make us any money, as we wouldn't know what was there. Human spaceflight will be useful in the long term of things considering our inevitable downfall that looms ever closer.

Edited October 16, 2012 by mustwinfull

[Nibb31]

So making money is the basis for everything we do?

Unfortunately, return on investment is a strong motivation for most human activity.

We explored the world without thinking it was make us any money, as we wouldn't know what was there. Human spaceflight will be useful in the long term of things considering our inevitable downfall that looms ever closer.

Actually, most exploration of the World was motivated by finding new resources and trade routes. Scientific research is another motivation, but is often either a byproduct or a way to gain a technological advantage that will lead to a marketable product or increased competitivity down the road.

[mustwinfull]

Unfortunately, return on investment is a strong motivation for most human activity.

Actually, most exploration of the World was motivated by finding new resources and trade routes. Scientific research is another motivation, but is often either a byproduct or a way to gain a technological advantage that will lead to a marketable product or increased competitivity down the road.

Ok then, but if I was exploring the world, I wouldn't know what things were lying about but you proved your point.

So people would rather have a few pieces of money than potentially save their lives for hundreds of years to come? If people think like that, I am amazed.

[Accelerando]

Who's people? I think you may be misunderstanding Nibb here; he is not saying that all people necessarily hinge their decisions on monetary return over the quest for improvement, only that historically this has more often been the case (and could be considered a strong trend), and that this is the current primary motivator of space travel among many other things. The people who control a lot of money tend to be the ones who want a lot of it, after all, not just the ones who want to do good things with their lot.

I think it's also true that Western society tends to favor people who can accumulate many resources as opposed to those who can use them frugally to the benefit of their society as well as themselves. Many people have a difficult time accepting the unknown and putting down their money for people they don't fully know and causes they don't fully understand, or believe they understand. Money is tangible and understandable to some extent even by the most basic mind; the benefits of investing that money are often not as obvious. I think this has been the major problem in human history, that people have not been educated enough or close enough to others to develop a real sense of the importance of vesting their wealth in knowledge-seeking, or in their kinship with their fellow humans, especially those outside their immediate community...

A robust program of space exploration will need to start with a very robust earth program.

[mustwinfull]

Who's people? I think you may be misunderstanding Nibb here; he is not saying that all people necessarily hinge their decisions on monetary return over the quest for improvement, only that historically this has more often been the case (and could be considered a strong trend), and that this is the current primary motivator of space travel among many other things. The people who control a lot of money tend to be the ones who want a lot of it, after all, not just the ones who want to do good things with their lot.

I think it's also true that Western society tends to favor people who can accumulate many resources as opposed to those who can use them frugally to the benefit of their society as well as themselves. Many people have a difficult time accepting the unknown and putting down their money for people they don't fully know and causes they don't fully understand, or believe they understand. Money is tangible and understandable to some extent even by the most basic mind; the benefits of investing that money are often not as obvious. I think this has been the major problem in human history, that people have not been educated enough or close enough to others to develop a real sense of the importance of vesting their wealth in knowledge-seeking, or in their kinship with their fellow humans, especially those outside their immediate community...

A robust program of space exploration will need to start with a very robust earth program.

Didn't I say that I was wrong in my last post. I'm sorry if you didn't see it.

I see where you are coming from though, although I can't believe people still act like this.

[Accelerando]

Yeah, you said that. My bad.

And it's crappy, aye.

[EndlessWaves]

What are you talking about? The sixties and seventies saw an explosion in wealth in America. Countless thousands of jobs have been created thanks to NASA's endeavours. Just listing the many spinoffs is boring, but just think for a minute about the inspiration for the whole sci-fi genre, to name one example. You can't put a price tag on that.

And yet NASA still isn't commercially viable and self-sustaining. You could put that down to mis-management or politics but the same applies to every other space organisation so it seems likely to be a field that simply doesn't offer commercial viability at the moment (SpaceX and the like certainly feel that's changing but we'll have to see how it works out in the long run).

Ok then, but if I was exploring the world, I wouldn't know what things were lying about but you proved your point.

There have been a few scientific expeditions - Challenger for example - but certainly people like Vasco da Gama and Colombus were on purely commercial, if speculative, expeditions to find alternate trading routes for the spices from the east indies.

[Pawelk198604]

Necroposting my old thread that i created just after i bought KSP  why ESA not have ovn manned launcher? 

[YNM]

As per Wikipedia,

Quote

ESA originally designed Ariane 5 to launch the Hermes spaceplane, and thus intended it to be human rated from the beginning.