Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

TwinBeam · 2004-07-06 17:02:46

I don't know how old you are and I'm not entirely sure your 'exploration-by-prizes' solution is necessarily the best way to go. However, I know exactly where you're coming from as regards the glacial pace of human space exploration since about 1972.

Consider that NASA's budget is about $15B/yr (I think - correct me if I'm wrong). About $10B goes into the shuttle and ISS, I think? So say we manage to put $7.5B into the prize fund, every year. Assume that over the first four years ($30B) maybe 10 challenges will be met. So divide that into prizes of $1B to $5B - pretty tasty chunks of cash even for major aerospace corporations, especially if they can find ways to win several prizes at once.

Maybe have a second place prize of about 1/3rd as much, for being the second independent effort to achieve something, and rule that any two accomplishing the same goal within 48 hours of each other have tied and will split the 1st and 2nd place prizes.

The goals should be chosen to create things of significant value: A better rocket design, delivery or construction of certain materials on the moon, collection of 1 ton of LOX from lunar regolith, rock samples returned from Mars, etc. All winning materials, components and designs become "public property" held by NASA, generally to be made available to anyone making a subsequent prize attempt.

Grypd · 2004-07-11 08:29:11

Reading the BIS Spaceflight magazine there was an article that attracts attention.

ESA re-thinking cooperation strategy

It is an interview with the Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain. Its states he and ESA are seriously rethinking any future cooperation with other Space agencies after the delays they have had etc. This seems to be aimed at NASA as later in the article he is hoping for closer links with Russia and the possible future membership of Russia in ESA.

So what does this mean, certainly it looks like a combined Mars Mission with ESA and NASA is not as good bet as it had been. But with an Esa/Russian partnership that does change the equation. Also found on an ESA site there plans for a mars Hab, I could not get the web page to save but it does look very similar to the Zubrin Mars direct type Hab but with the addition of inflatable architecture.

Rxke · 2004-07-12 02:59:34

From bits and pieces on the net, I've gotten the impression that the Aurora plans are being 'downgraded' towards more robotics-oriented, less manned stuf. (Only in discussions, so take this for what it's worth)

But close cooperation with Russia might change this, they are big in manned operations, and still proud of it.
Let's hope the wild-eyed but pennieless Russians can 'thaw' the sedate European ESA...

With the Russian boosters launching from French Guyana, we're into a whole new game, I'd think. 5deg from the equator, hmmmm... Seriously increased launch-capacity!

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-14 05:13:40

Well Esa is to get bigger, both greece and luxemburg are to join.
So Esa will get a slightly bigger budget, but as it really is a cheap space organisation will it mean any big plans coming to fulfillment. Esa always tries to do space missions and research as cheap as possible it does not have Nasa's money. The smart-1 mission is example of a succesful mission, Why successful, It has shown how to use an Ion engine effectively, It is using its instruments already, its a success.

According to Bigalow:
US space valve: $100,000
EU space value: $5,000

Big budget doesn't count for much if you're paying 20 times the going rate. If the EU shops around, or buys Russian, they could still achieve more than NASA. Especially if it stops trying to carbon copy NASA. (Shuttle/Hermes etc) Or if it simple doesn't charge itself $10B to administer a $5B project - like NASA sometimes does.

ANTIcarrot.

smurf975 · 2004-07-14 07:43:39

From http://www.esa.int/esaCP/GGG4SXG3AEC_index_0.html]here:

How big is ESA’s budget?
In 2003 the budget was €2700 million. ESA operates on the basis of geographical return, i.e. it invests in each Member State, through industrial contracts for space programmes, an amount more or less equivalent to each country’s contribution.

So thats almost 2.7 billion euros compared to NASA's budget its spare chance.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-14 08:11:52

Still, 2.7 billion Euros is roughly equivalent to USD 3.3 billion.
And, according to Dr. Zubrin, that much money per annum over a ten-year period would place on Mars a Hab, an Earth Return Vehicle, an In-Situ Propellant Plant, a nuclear reactor to power everything ... Oh, and 4 humans to run everything!
Some spare change! :;):

[I guess it depends who's organising the budget.]

smurf975 · 2004-07-14 08:18:45

Yes but 15 billion compared to 3 billion?

RobS · 2004-07-14 13:37:59

But keep in mind if $2 billion of that is French money, it's largely spent in France, not Russia. And if Luxembourg and Greece toss in $1 million each, it will be quite interesting trying to figuring out how to buy $1 million of space-related stuff from each. If anything, that approach to spending produces economic distortions and raises costs.

And Bigelow's $5,000 valve from Germany might have cost $100,000 if ESA had ordered it.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-14 14:38:56

Still, 2.7 billion Euros is roughly equivalent to USD 3.3 billion.
And, according to Dr. Zubrin, that much money per annum over a ten-year period would place on Mars a Hab, an Earth Return Vehicle, an In-Situ Propellant Plant, a nuclear reactor to power everything ... Oh, and 4 humans to run everything!
Some spare change! :;):
[I guess it depends who's organising the budget.]

*bzzzt* Nope!

The price tag for MarsDirect is for NASA with NASA's infrastructure, skills, and preexsisting technology to pull off MD... free VAB, cheap HLLV launch pad, cheap HLLV Ares, space nuclear experience, lander technology, etc etc etc etc etc etc that ESA/RSA would not have.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-14 15:00:05

And how has NASA's infrastructure, skills, and preexsisting technology coped with the simple task of building something like Mir?

Not too well has it? Does anyone know how much Mir actually cost? I'd be willing to bet over it's entire lifespan from idea to burnup it cost less than the ISS has to date. Possibly less than ISS launch costs to date.

An ESA/RSA tag-team would be more than capable of giving NASA a run for it's money.

ANTIcarrot.
PS: Doesn't the RSA get 'lander' experience everytime a soyuz comes down?

C M Edwards · 2004-07-14 15:06:40

Hmm...

The claim was made earlier that $10 billion US of NASA's budget is spent on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. That leaves NASA about $5 billion for other projects. As long as NASA is tightly saddled with Shuttle and ISS, that $5 billion seems a better indication of NASA's capabilities than the $15 billion gross value, of which 66% arrives already spent.

I don't think $3 billion compares too unfavorably to $5 billion.

Grypd · 2004-07-14 15:43:51

Quote Rxke July12, 04:59

From bits and pieces on the net, I've gotten the impression that the aurora plans are being "downgraded"

It does seem that Esa plans to create a manned launcher on there own are being downgraded but i think i know why.

If you read Mars news you will see an article where Russia and Esa are stating alliance with creating the new russian manned vehicle the clipper. Why should europe develop its own manned launcher if it can use Russian ones especially if they are launched from the Esa spaceport. This makes fiscal and political sense.

P.s. I believe that Esa just had its budget increased by contributions from the European parliament

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-15 05:51:48

There's no doubt in my mind that ESA/RSA, if they can work together cohesively as a single organisation, have more than enough experience and smarts to produce the goods in human space exploration.
While money is a perennial problem everywhere, I think Europe (and I include Russia in that pigeon-hole) has other problems that the U.S. doesn't have. Most of 'em don't trust one another and are constantly engaged in a subtle form of one-upmanship!
America's system allows for its 50 States to behave as one entity if the circumstances demand it, which they commonly do, whereas Europe is really just a relatively loose association of countries, still far more interested in their own internal affairs than in a 'United States of Europe'.

As much as Americans here at New Mars bemoan the burgeoning red tape of their Federal government system, it seems to me that the U.S. still has a free hand compared to the stultifying bureaucracy that bedevils the European Union.

While I think that a unified and motivated ESA/RSA would represent formidable competition in space for America, I doubt they'll ever get their act together long enough to make an impact - though I dearly wish they would!

Palomar · 2004-07-15 06:16:38

I think Europe (and I include Russia in that pigeon-hole) has other problems that the U.S. doesn't have. Most of 'em don't trust one another and are constantly engaged in a subtle form of one-upmanship!
America's system allows for its 50 States to behave as one entity if the circumstances demand it, which they commonly do, whereas Europe is really just a relatively loose association of countries, still far more interested in their own internal affairs than in a 'United States of Europe'.

*Hi Shaun:

I don't wish to take this thread off topic, simply want to make a few comments in conjunction with your post. Yes, your impressions are correct about the U.S. Generally speaking, we see ourselves as Americans first and as citizens of our respective States second. Of course we have our bits of internal squabbling as well; a certain county in New Hampshire wants to be recognized as belonging to Vermont (I have no idea why), Arizona doesn't recognize Daylight Savings Time, Texans think their State is superior to all others and Alaskans like "the lower 48 to go home" ASAP when the tourism season is officially over. Each Sate has its own road rules and means of obtaining driver's licenses, on and on.

But those are secondary issues which most people blow off. It's national identity before State identity usually and for the most part.

I've not been to Europe and so am not familiar with its political climates and etc., but I've read enough history to think it would be a much more difficult task to foster a sense of unity there (many centuries of national identity), whereas the States were encouraged by a sense of unity very early on. There are still some sore spots in the States over the Civil War -- so I imagine how incidents of the past may continue to haunt Europe. But I don't know, of course; am speculating is all. If certain Americans STILL can't get over the Civil War and its outcome, I can't help wondering...(human nature and all that)...

--Cindy

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-15 11:09:19

America's system allows for its 50 States to behave as one entity if the circumstances demand it, which they commonly do, whereas Europe is really just a relatively loose association of countries, still far more interested in their own internal affairs than in a 'United States of Europe'.

Very true. The problem starts though when 'all the states working together' becomes 'all the states want a piece of the pie'. One of the bigger reasons (though not the only one) that NASA couldn't persue the CD-X/Y programme is because it would have involved giving all the money to one company and one state. This was completely unacceptable to everyone else, and so a very promising project was terminated.

Similarly in the early stages of the Eurofighter the Germans reasonably demanded a big share - and got the flight control software. Unfortunately they had no experience in that area and didn't do too well as a result. A couple of years later and things were reorganised according to capacity & experience (as done with Airbus) rather than by order of who would winge the loudest.

Since then both the EU & US are experimenting with new management policies. If the US manages to solve the problems of waste first - then great, and they could have a man on mars by 2020. If an ESA/RSA partnership does it first though, then all the money in the world won't help NASA keep up.

May the least incompetent organisation win.

ANTIcarrot.

Grypd · 2004-07-15 15:42:16

Esa is an agency it is not part of the Eu goverment. But they recently have agreed to have a lot closer links.

The Galileo project will be funded by be the Eu and a lot of the bills that Esa used to pay for have now come under the Eu's technology budget, Ie maintaining the Weather satelites. this does free up for esa about 600 million euros a really good percentage of Esa's budget. The Aurora programme if on track was to cost the eu taxpayer about 900 million euros between 2004 to 2007. This puts them still on the financial trail and apparently well on it too. Will this money be put to good use i dont know. Esa certainly has shown a willingness to use cheap reliable technologies so it does give hope as long as the red tape is well cut.

Can Esa do the Bush type plan before Nasa, Yes it can, Will it, im not so sure. Can America beat Esa yes, but only by seriously changing Nasa.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-15 18:57:39

So, it looks like my impressions of European behaviour are fairly mainstream; most people seem to see it the same way.
Thanks, people, for the specifics to my generalisations!
And yes, Cindy, your analogy about left-over resentment in some American States, dating back to the Civil War, does help to provide some perspective on European relationships. For example, the French and the British have been at war with each other, off and on, for literally centuries. When I lived in England, there was still a kind of bland simmering animosity towards France, just under the surface; the attitude being: "You can have a jovial productive relationship with the froggies but keep your wits about you and never turn your back to them!". It was like everybody was happy enough to live side-by-side with France but that it was a slightly uneasy truce and, if the Brits found themselves at war with the French the following weekend, nobody would be the least bit surprised!
Just some personal impressions of the situation as I remember it.

This is the reason I find it difficult to imagine an efficient and genuinely pan-European cooperation in space. But then, my impressions of European attitudes are some two decades old now and things do change.

Rxke · 2004-07-15 23:20:17

Piping in...

And sorry for the British people, don't take it personal, but...
Europe won't ever 'happen' with 'Downing street 10' doing what it is doing tody: actively sabotaging it by always wanting something else.
Blair going on record for saying the relations with the US are more important than with the EU... They don't even have the Euro, while Ireland has, crazy.
OTOH, 'united' Europe, as it turning out right now, is a Kafkaesque monster, inefficient, over-complex... The only jobs it is creating is in the paper-business and desk-furniture industry, one should think...

RobS · 2004-07-15 23:52:05

I very much agree, Rxke, that Europe is an inefficient organization. But who would have thought, 25 years ago, there would be a European "Union" and a "euro"? It's truly incredible when contrasted to the rivers of blood that have been shed by the same people's parents and grandparents, either in hate of others or in often-futile self defense (as in the case of your own country). In June, driving 700 kilometers around France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, and Switzerland, I often pointed out old, broken-down bunkers to my wife and my six year old daughter. There was a Maginot Line bunker right under the bridge we used several times to drive from France to Germany to go shopping in the local Aldi. Now, the customs on the bridge are closed and one drives across like going from one state in the U.S. to another, complete with the little tourist buildings on each side of the border to assist tourists from the other country to come in and spend their money. The E.U. flag flies over the old customs buildings and I felt so proud of what my cousins had achieved there in Europe, I wished I was European myself! The French and Germans have a zillion reasons from history to distrust and dislike each other, but the French drive to German Aldis for cheap groceries, the Germans drive to France to buy cheap houses (though the value is going up), and everyone drives to Switzerland (and Luxembourg) to buy cheap gasoline. Chain stores are proliferating and are found cross-border. Truck stops are fascinating international places, with working class truckers mingling and communicating in a dozen languages.

Americans need to see this and experience it. Any effort to settle Mars will be international. No one country will fully dominate that planet. We do not yet know whether Americans, Europeans/Russians, or Chinese will play the largest role there. The international mechanisms for settling Mars will be bureaucratic, complex, and probably inefficient. (Let's hope there will be commercial efficiency involved as well.) National arrogance (of the sort demonstrated in the Middle East last year) will not serve the cause of Mars well. So Americans should get their passports and see more of this world, in order to gain some of the cultural perspective needed to settle another world.

-- RobS

Algol · 2004-07-16 02:30:34

Europe is an inneficient organisation, as most international projects are, but i feel proud that we are trying and im willing to accept inneficiency at first - but like anybody only up to a point.

ESA on the other hand, from what ive seen, is quite an efficient organisation. All the different cultures and perspectives actually create a dynamic working environment - and the constant flow of people in and out of the organisation seem to always be bring fresh ideas and attitudes to the table.

What always amazes me is that ESA only employs 2000 staff and another 2000 contractors compared to NASAs 25'000 staff and 40'000 contractors!

As for the English-French rivalry its really just a bit of fun. As the 100 year celebrations of the entente-cordiale showed recently, England and France have been on good terms for longer than most countries in Europe. The rivalry is similar to the way we mock the Irish, or the French mock the Belgians or the Swiss.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-16 04:03:58

ESA on the other hand, from what ive seen, is quite an efficient organisation.

As is Airbus, which was recently reported as pulling ahead of Boeing for the first time.

Remember, for the moment the EU has little political power, and while it can do little to help either organisation, it can do little to hinder them either.

ANTIcarrot.

Grypd · 2004-07-16 04:06:06

Consider the Scottish-English rivalry. It is when these cultures along with Wales became Great Britain that Britain was able to create its Empire. Even now there is a strong rivalry between these states though they form one country. It is the capacity for states to Promote the general interest ahead of strict national ones that allows them to be successful.

Europe is joining it is at an early stage but it will grow. At the moment with all the different Cultures and laws it is a bit top heavy to deal with this, but it can change.

Gennaro · 2004-07-18 01:41:17

Cindy wrote:

I've not been to Europe and so am not familiar with its political climates and etc., but I've read enough history to think it would be a much more difficult task to foster a sense of unity there (many centuries of national identity), whereas the States were encouraged by a sense of unity very early on. There are still some sore spots in the States over the Civil War -- so I imagine how incidents of the past may continue to haunt Europe. But I don't know, of course; am speculating is all. If certain Americans STILL can't get over the Civil War and its outcome, I can't help wondering...(human nature and all that)...

I believe a key might be for European interrelations to centre on where common interests converge, not trying to foster some artificial sense of unity (which of course does not mean that displays of central power and authority should not be spectacular and aesthetically appealing in the extreme). No one has ever managed to 'create' a sense of togetherness, loyalty or national unity out of nothing, such things evolve quite spontaneously and out of control of governments.
An area of converging interests that readily springs to mind, and which is probably the one with the profoundest implications, is guarding European capital, industry and employment from globalist financial exploitation, pursuing a policy of selective protectionism and practical autarchy – a position the US traditionally has hitherto enjoyed.
From this follows the need to put foreign policy and hence the armed forces to back it up under imperial command. Leaving military contributions to the discretion of the nations will only serve to make European feebleness a permanent feature of international politics.
On the other side, nations should simply be left to preserve their own identity the way they like. Imperial loyalty works on another level. To make a long story short I'll take myself as an example. Since identifying the actual practical needs and uses for a united Europe, I've grown quite an emotional attachment to my continent, to this old Europe. In fact, it was there all along while it has in no sense diminished my commitment to my country.

Anyway, with the hegemony of international financial forces broken and staved off by the resurgence of the political, Europe can begin to make its weight felt when it comes to the large fateful challenges of ecology, demographics and poverty worldwide. America can't be expected to be responsible for all and everything. It hasn't the power, time or will to do that.

Oh yes, the supposed inter-European hatreds is a much exaggerated factor. Nationalism is fundamentally about self-identification, not loathing the other guy. Historically, europeans generally don't need to hate anyone to start a war with them or someone's head of state, only respond to a sense of duty. It's a cultural thing and a matter of a specific set of virtues, in my opinion.

BWhite · 2004-07-18 10:28:31

Gennaro writes:

Anyway, with the hegemony of international financial forces broken and staved off by the resurgence of the political, Europe can begin to make its weight felt when it comes to the large fateful challenges of ecology, demographics and poverty worldwide. America can't be expected to be responsible for all and everything. It hasn't the power, time or will to do that.

All of the above, yet especially this:

Anyway, with the hegemony of international financial forces broken and staved off by the resurgence of the political,. . .

interests me. May I ask you to amplify your thoughts?

Gennaro · 2004-07-18 12:26:47

All of the above, yet especially this:
Anyway, with the hegemony of international financial forces broken and staved off by the resurgence of the political,. . .
interests me. May I ask you to amplify your thoughts?

Certainly.
Naturally this is not a denounciation of Riccardo. The free trade theory of comparative benefits is mathemathically correct representation of reality and still holds true, at least in an ideal sense.
Yet Riccardo lived in a world where productive forces, both manpower and real capital, were essentially immobile. Today, production can easily be moved to any part of the world and facilities erected anywhere where wages are at the lowest possible. Also liquidized means in his day were not transferrable in seconds by the tap, tap on a computer keyboard.
This gives present day international finance it's impressive and previously unheard of force in relation to which no government of any mid-sized country is able compete. In other words, we have finally if not before, arrived at scene of what Lassalle, the 19th century German socialist who got killed in a duel, called the "iron law of wage distribution" (I'm not sure of the correct wording in English).
Left to its own devices, free trade and market liberalism thus has taken the global workforce hostage, black-mailing it into a spiral of under-bidding its price, which logically only comes to rest at its lowest acceptable social denominator and by coincidence including in the bargain, the price of sustainable development and finite natural resources.
This has an immediate consequence in lowering global aggregate demand. Thus capitalism begins to contract, leaving the market with a structural over-capacity and an eroding infrastructure as a consequence of pressure on the taxation base.
We have been living in this world for some time now, roughly for the last 30 years or so. This is a state identical to the stage of late capitalism in Marx and the state of affairs which brought about the Stockholm school of economics, Keynesianism and its corresponding Rooseveltian and Fascist manifestations.
However, in the new environment the scale of the market has grown to large for the typical nation state to introduce classic demand/income redistribution based policies. Any means spent on consumers to beef up buying power will only slip out of the country and not create incentives for domestic productive investment and employment.

The trick is to enlarge the political power base by an equal amount. This has to include not only large numbers of people and a good chunk of geography, but a near complete set of natural resources and processing industry. That way demand and supply will generally be directed towards the home market and stay within the same area of political lordship and taxation. This is what the European Union is presently in the process of doing through its expansion. I.e, taking over the role that previously, on a lower level of capitalist evolution and integration, was assigned to the nation state. (Although there is reason to believe the European political establishment doesn't think that's what they are doing.)
In fact, it's my firm belief that nearly every country with a past history of successful industrialization, maybe with the exception of Britain, which was the pioneer (yet superceded), and Switzerland, which was and is a financial haven, has managed to achieve it mainly by courtesy of the home market, not unrestricted free trade. This holds true of countries like Germany, Japan, Taiwan and the United States.

One can call this a resurgence of the political, if you will, because a process of political decision making is instrumental in its making, as opposed to the the last quarter of a century or so, which was marked by neoliberalism and the self-inflicted demise of the political. You can also call it socialism - reducing a tiger capitalism decided upon during nebulous G8 meetings, into a fenced-in docile milk cow for the benefit of the masses and human achievement.

However, and perhaps especially in Europe, it's all determined by which way we choose to go from here. No political establishment of any country or era is generally very enlighted and professional politicians, like the ones produced by a mature democracy, are self-interested or watched over by someone with an axe to grind, almost by definition.
So for the comeback of political imperative to really show itself, it must probably be accompanied by some outward manifestation. Colourful, visual leadership; a transparent state machinery and political will power autonomous from vested interests.
Regretfully, we see almost nothing of this happening in Europe. Like Rxke pointed out, the EU is an impenetrable bureacratic monster with an unclarified agenda, even cutting back on such basic conditions for revolutionary processes and paradigm shifts as free speech and unrestricted exchange of ideas.

There. Now you'll have to excuse me, since I'm much obliged and have to attend a dinner party for a friend at my parents' home. I'm already late. See you later.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-07-06 17:02:46

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#52 2004-07-11 08:29:11

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#53 2004-07-12 02:59:34

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#54 2004-07-14 05:13:40

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#55 2004-07-14 07:43:39

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#56 2004-07-14 08:11:52

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#57 2004-07-14 08:18:45

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#58 2004-07-14 13:37:59

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#59 2004-07-14 14:38:56

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#60 2004-07-14 15:00:05

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#61 2004-07-14 15:06:40

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#62 2004-07-14 15:43:51

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#63 2004-07-15 05:51:48

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#64 2004-07-15 06:16:38

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#65 2004-07-15 11:09:19

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#66 2004-07-15 15:42:16

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#67 2004-07-15 18:57:39

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#68 2004-07-15 23:20:17

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#69 2004-07-15 23:52:05

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#70 2004-07-16 02:30:34

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#71 2004-07-16 04:03:58

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#72 2004-07-16 04:06:06

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#73 2004-07-18 01:41:17

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#74 2004-07-18 10:28:31

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#75 2004-07-18 12:26:47

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

Board footer