On 30 November 2015 an EU-ESA informal Space Council took place in Brussels. On the agenda were three topics: the evolution of the Space Council, the institutional launcher market and promotion of the use of space systems and data in public policies.
The three subjects were treated in two rounds (tours de table). I had the opportunity to intervene and express my views on all these subjects but the main focus of my intervention was the question of how we reinforce the Space Council. Defined in the famous EU-ESA Framework Agreement, the Space Council is currently the only political platform where Member States of the European Union, ESA Member States, the European Commission and ESA can meet and exchange views, on an equal footing and, together, develop an overall European space policy. Member States have their own space policies, both nationally and within ESA for those that are ESA members. Since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union is now also entitled to draw up its own space policy. Thus, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Vice President of the European Convention and inventor of the ”parallel competence” concept, once stated: ”European action in space must be strengthened as overall action, not in the pillar style”. An efficient and effective joint platform is therefore greatly needed.
Informal EU-ESA Space Council, Brussels, 30 November 2015, with Elżbieta Bieńkowska, European Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (top right) and Jan Woener, ESA Director General (top left) a.o. – Credit: SIP / Thierry Monasse
ESA is of course ready to play its part in supporting all stakeholders in having an instrument at their disposal at European level, be it informal or, preferably, formal. As defined in its founding Convention, ESA was set up by its Member States with the remit of “elaborating and implementing a long-term European Space Policy, by recommending space objectives to the Member States, and by concerting the policies of the Member States”. We at ESA are ready to continue being the Space Agency for Europe. While we will continue to play the full role towards our Member States defined in the Convention, we are also ready to be a source of space policy proposals to the EU, and to implement both EU programmes and those of our Member States.
The EU and ESA already have a well-established relationship, and it is clear that my priority is to deliver the programmes in full compliance with our Agreements with the EU. On this I am at one with my colleagues in the Commission. However, we must also prepare for the future and there is, it is true, some room for improvement in our relationship. The principle for implementation of future programmes should be to make a clear distinction between the programme authority, on the one hand, and the programme management, on the other, and to have one single Agreement laying out the general principles of the cooperation with further specific arrangements for specific programmes. In that sense, EU projects can be handled internally in a similar way to optional programmes, with the EU as the programme authority defining high-level requirements, budget, schedule and high-level implementing rules and ESA as the programme manager responsible for defining the system, and the contractual and technical aspects, based on the experience and expertise we have acquired over decades of successful space activities.
My sincere hope is that all future developments between the different actors in the European space sector are dictated by their respective expertise rather than any form of vanity or power games. The citizens of Europe have a right to expect from all of us that we use their money as efficiently as possible, avoiding any duplication of efforts and pointless struggles over position and status. This can be summarised under the motto United Space in Europe.
Discussion: 3 comments
SpaceX stirred a great deal of excitement in the space industry when it succeeded in landing a launch booster after an orbital flight. I must say it also stirred up a great deal of concern among others in the field, for success means they become obsolete.
But other agencies with liquid fueled rockets can easily follow SpaceX’s lead of cutting costs by returning the first stage booster of their launchers to the launch site.
The only ones left out would be ESA with an Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 which can not be operated in a fully liquid fueled mode. But ESA can solve this simply by choosing the option for the Ariane 6 of multiple Vulcains on the core. This would have the advantage of also giving ESA a fully independent manned spaceflight capability.
See discussion here:
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-coming-sstos-multi-vulcain-ariane.html
This discusses the SSTO case but the point is you could still use the multi-Vulcain option for two-stage rockets. Note this would be a much cheaper development since no new engines or solid motors would be required.
Also Elon has acknowledged the F9 first stage could be SSTO so ESA can match SpaceX in this great technical advance as well.
Bob Clark
Europe now has the opportunity to lead international collaboration in lunar development. This could be done on a big scale eventually involving manned operations on the lunar surface as well as in space. To secure a brighter future for Europe and for the world Europe should choose the more difficult path. As President Kennedy stated over 50 years ago “‘We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”. If the hard things are done then the space frontier will be opened and in the following decades much will become easier and much more will become possible.
The GDP of the EU plus associated states such as Switzerland and Norway is nearly $3 trillion more than the US, yet Europe has invested much less in space. It is time to change that. In the coming decade the infrastructure will be laid to do much more in space. Europe can lead in this process and the Moon Village is a strong start. But, to do Moon Village well what is needed is a lunar utility that can provide power, broadband communications and navigation services to operations on the lunar surface. Jim Schier estimates that this could be done for $300 million. This should be a top priority because then the rovers that follow and pilot ISRU sites can be powered throughout the lunar night. Utilities on Earth charge for the power and communications services that they provide. The Lunar Utility can be a business.
I think that, ESA should use four “schaparelli” inside the top of rocket, instead of one. No TGO in the rocket, but four
advise to lounch on the mars. It is better to work with four possibility that only one.