ESA - Aurora Program

Vir Stellae · 2004-12-31 10:35:29

I am a bit more pessimistic given the current drain on the EU's economy for social services, which will likly get worse even with limited pro-capitalist legeslation, but I could see the EU pulling off a medium-term Lunar mission if they really tried hard. A Mars mission beyond flags/footprints is probobly out of their reach given they lack the background even if they did partner with Russia to revive Energia to carry a ship there.

The EU is already sucking up 40% of it economy with taxes, while at the same time ringing in deficits and debts that are larger than the US (Contrary to what most would think given the media coverage) , and growing slower at the same time. Europe lacks the capacity to pay for a long term space program, especially considering the pension problem that will arise this decade.

BWhite · 2004-12-31 11:08:05

Americans "live to work" but who is really collecting the honey these worker bees are producing?
I'm not going to argue with this. The Marxists in me tends to agree with you somewhat even. I was just pointing out that the retorical question you are asking is realy not so retorical, it is more of a cultural issue.

My sense, as an American, is that the political Right would like us to believe that asking such questions is not permitted. As Freud said, happiness is found in "Love and Work" - - but for who's benefit should we work?

smurf975 · 2004-12-31 11:23:48

I read that for example every 10.000 euros spend on ESA creates 30.000 euros worth of high tech jobs. Notice high tech jobs as that what most modern western countries want to excell in.

To date, the return on investments in the space industry has been good. A survey commissioned by ESA in 1997 showed the direct economic return from the Ariane programmes to be in the ratio of 1 to 4, that is, each participant country obtained three times its initial investment through contracts awarded to its industry.

Taken from http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Laun … .html]here

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-31 11:29:37

Be wary Smurf, this effect is not an unlimited one. If you put in $1M euros and get $3M back, that doesn't mean if you spend $10Bn euros you will get $30Bn back.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-12-31 16:41:55

I am a bit more pessimistic given the current drain on the EU's economy for social services, which will likly get worse even with limited pro-capitalist legeslation, but I could see the EU pulling off a medium-term Lunar mission if they really tried hard.

I agree completely, but it's that last part "if they really tried hard" that's the killer. The cardinal mistake that we space advoactes seem to make in predicting the future is that we assume all the world's governments are as inspired by the space frontier as much as we are and are willing to invest advanced amounts of time and money in exploration. The fate of NASA after Nixon took office shows that this clearly is only the case in a few rare exceptional scinerios; I'd bet that the EU would much rather be spending these 40 million euros on feeding the homeless or creating new jobs.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong in the coming decade(s), and while I'd like that I just don't see much likelihood in the EU suddenly gaining interest in developing space travel. Governments are short-sighted an myopic, they don't see the value in programs like Aurora. The manned spaceflight component of Aurora will go the way of SEI soon enough.

RobS · 2004-12-31 19:17:10

I doubt the EU will do much in space either, unfortunately. Note that the EU government does not have a connection to ESA. That's something that may change; there was a call last year to connect ESA to the EU government.

Comparing US and European tax rates is a bit misleading. You have to compare US federal and state tax rates AND the US expenditure on health care to European governmental tax rates to make a good comparison. And health care-which is at least as good in Europe as in the US, probably better from my experience and according to the World Health Organization--costs 2/3 as much GDP as it does in the US.

As for economic growth, it varies a lot from place to place. Germany's been doing the worst; but it is still digesting eastern Germany. France hasn't been doing badly (it's slower than the US, but respectable; 1.9%). Spain, Portugal, Finland, and Ireland, have been roaring along. The Netherlands has had very strong growth and low unemployment.

So I think it's more a question of will than ability.

-- RobS

Vir Stellae · 2005-01-01 09:48:03

"As for economic growth, it varies a lot from place to place. Germany's been doing the worst; but it is still digesting eastern Germany. France hasn't been doing badly (it's slower than the US, but respectable; 1.9%)."

The US Grew 4.9% this year, and 3.0% last year, France only grew ~0.4% in 2001 and 2002. growth rates in all he Euro countiries are slowing down.

"Spain, Portugal, Finland, and Ireland, have been roaring along."

Finland: 2.8%
Portugal: 1.8% (shrank in 2003)
Spain: 2.5%

None of those rates would be considered "roaring", is the US, by the media it was considered a recession, lol. Ireland is doing well at 4.2%, though.

"The Netherlands has had very strong growth and low unemployment."

????? THe Netherlands shrank by 1.2% in 2003, shrank in 2002, and posting pathetic growth of 1.4% this year..
Italy is "roaring" at 1.3%, after growing a mighty 0.2% last year..

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/17/19230 … 230458.xls

GDP is measured from the middles of the year.

RobS · 2005-01-01 23:52:09

I'm referring to ten-year averages from the 2005 edition of *World in Figures* by the Economist. Ten year averages smooth out annual variation:

Spain: 2.8% average, 1992-2002
France: 1.9%
Portugal: 2.4%
Finland: 3.4%
Ireland: 7.7%
Netherlands: 2.6%
Germany: 1.3%
U.K.: 2.8%
U.S.: 3.3%
Canada: 3.5% (better than the US!)
Euro Area: 1.9%
World: 1.2%

And while we're at it, health care cost as percentage of GDP:

US: 13.9% (149% of Euro area average!)
Canada:9.5%
France: 9.6%
Euro Area: 9.3%

-- RobS

Vir Stellae · 2005-01-03 17:46:06

INteresting figures, but growth in Europe has been on a decreasing trend, you wold find that if you did the last ten years instead (94-04) Europe's, especially Germany's would have decreased, while the US, ans UKs increased.

The Trend continue as the rate of increased in the working age populations slows, until it declines.

Commodore · 2005-01-03 22:17:55

INteresting figures, but growth in Europe has been on a decreasing trend, you wold find that if you did the last ten years instead (94-04) Europe's, especially Germany's would have decreased, while the US, ans UKs increased.
The Trend continue as the rate of increased in the working age populations slows, until it declines.

It should be noted that the US will have the same problem as the Baby Boom generation retires.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-04 05:42:48

(Mad Grad Student @ Posted on Dec. 31 2004, 17:41
)]I'd bet that the EU would much rather be spending these 40 million euros on feeding the homeless or creating new jobs.

I think that making jobs that pay well such as in the space industry would be the number one thing to do. Making service style, temporary employment hiring and minimum wage jobs do nothing to help the situation that can and are probably the reason for the homeless an unemployed quite possibly. I know from my own experience that if I can not save money for a rainy day then I am not earning enough for the job that I have after normal living expenses.

Vir Stellae · 2005-01-04 10:03:27

(Mad Grad Student @ Posted on Dec. 31 2004, 17:41)
I'd bet that the EU would much rather be spending these 40 million euros on feeding the homeless or creating new jobs.
I think that making jobs that pay well such as in the space industry would be the number one thing to do. Making service style, temporary employment hiring and minimum wage jobs do nothing to help the situation that can and are probably the reason for the homeless an unemployed quite possibly. I know from my own experience that if I can not save money for a rainy day then I am not earning enough for the job that I have after normal living expenses.

It is certainly 100,000 times better than paying people to do nothing, as many socialist welfare hammocks do.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-04 10:57:51

I guess That I was miss understood in that having a job of any kind is the right thing to do and Not to be welching on socialistic welfare programs. I would not want to pay people to do nothing.
My other though was of providing better paying jobs rather than the jobs being of the stlye that keeps us as working poor just barely surviving.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-04 11:05:53

My other though was of providing better paying jobs rather than the jobs being of the stlye that keeps us as working poor just barely surviving.

Of course the whole argument is a bit specious anyway since the people working low-paying service jobs generally aren't qualified to do high-paying technical jobs. At least not without a significant amount of educating first, at great expense which they can't cover themselves, requiring someone else to pay. We can't just take people out of McDonald's and start them building rockets, which is the implication behind "creating high-paying jobs."

And all of this ignores the reality that government can't "create" jobs in any meaningful sense anyway since they don't produce anything. It's all management, and inefficient management at that.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-04 11:19:53

But that is where some of the fantasy begins.

In the 80's I worked for a large computer manufacturer and trained just those type of people to trouble shoot and test high voltage switching power supplies, to read schematics, using ohm meters, Digital voltage meters, Oscilloscopes and soldering removal tools.

It comes back to who should bear the cost of training personel for a given job being the employer or the employee, whether this is on the job training, college , university or a technical school given education. Oh and lets not forget coop students who work to gain knowlegde of a job.

Vir Stellae · 2005-01-04 11:22:00

My other though was of providing better paying jobs rather than the jobs being of the stlye that keeps us as working poor just barely surviving.
Of course the whole argument is a bit specious anyway since the people working low-paying service jobs generally aren't qualified to do high-paying technical jobs. At least not without a significant amount of educating first, at great expense which they can't cover themselves, requiring someone else to pay. We can't just take people out of McDonald's and start them building rockets, which is the implication behind "creating high-paying jobs."
And all of this ignores the reality that government can't "create" jobs in any meaningful sense anyway since they don't produce anything. It's all management, and inefficient management at that.

True, True.

I was more agreeing wih the fact that spending money on Space exploration is more fruitful in every conceivable way than paying poor people to pick their noses...

Palomar · 2005-01-04 11:24:48

My other though was of providing better paying jobs rather than the jobs being of the stlye that keeps us as working poor just barely surviving.
Of course the whole argument is a bit specious anyway since the people working low-paying service jobs generally aren't qualified to do high-paying technical jobs. At least not without a significant amount of educating first, at great expense which they can't cover themselves, requiring someone else to pay. We can't just take people out of McDonald's and start them building rockets, which is the implication behind "creating high-paying jobs."
And all of this ignores the reality that government can't "create" jobs in any meaningful sense anyway since they don't produce anything.

*True. When did the shift of perception occur in the U.S. that if you want a better life you have to work for and apply yourself versus everyone "deserves" better (presumably "just because")?

America is going downhill because of this "I deserve it, gimme" (for no reason -- "just because") attitude.

A lady in a craft shop a few years ago dismissed my polite inquiry with a mere rude point to the area which contained an item I needed, which I'd been unable to find. If she's "too good" to work minimum wage, don't take it out on the customer. Go to night school, apply for a student loan, or try to get into clerical work at a hospital (better pay, nice benefits) which will train you.

Seems to me there's too many Americans out there who don't plan ahead, get themselves into a pickle, then want to be "rescued" on the provisio that they "deserve it."

Where's the self-responsibility?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-04 12:04:04

It comes back to who should bear the cost of training personel for a given job being the employer or the employee, whether this is on the job training, college , university or a technical school given education.

And therein lies the problem, if the person seeking the job can't pay then either the prospective employer has to or the taxpayers do. The employer will very likely find it more fiscally sound to hire someone who's already trained (at inflated payscales) or just hire educated but cheap foreigners. Indian and Chinese engineers work for much less than their American counterparts, even if they're moved over here.

Or we as taxpayers pay for it, which can work but entails all sorts of regulation and controls on people (can somewhere go to school to learn two skilled trades just because they feel like it? Can someone use the public dime to learn engineering if their instructors don't think they'd make good engineers?) in addition to the taking of the money they earn which offsets the benefits of having a high-paying job in the first place.

I was more agreeing wih the fact that spending money on Space exploration is more fruitful in every conceivable way than paying poor people to pick their noses...

I agree wholeheartedly, just saw a need to spar with Spacenut over some of his points.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-04 12:27:01

I guess that the last part of the education question should be is: What is a reasonable cost per particular level achieved? To what proficiency level does that amount of education increase productivity versus on the job or some hybird of the two forms?

Which brings me back to why is space so costly, is it because we pay a design engineers cost for a laborer level of educational need?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-03-21 03:29:56

60 days of bed-rest for terrestrial female astronauts

Since Saturday, 19 March, the study entitled Women International Space Simulation for Exploration (WISE) has been fully under way.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMAXJRMD6E_in … dex_0.html

ESA has created an information website on WISE at: http://spaceflight.esa.int/wise]http:// … a.int/wise

Soyuz · 2005-03-23 16:14:00

I don't know if this has been posted here before, but take a look at this link:ftp://ftp.estec.esa.nl/pub/aurora]Aurora documents (ftp server). Make sure you take a look at the reports in the map ftp://ftp.estec.esa.nl/pub/aurora/Human … Mars]Human Missions to Mars. Its an extensive ESA study of a human mission to mars. There's loads of data in this report. Their spacecraft is huge: it gets assembled in earth orbit, would require a total launch mass of 1511.5 tonnes which would be launched by 21 Energia's, 3 Ariane 5's, 1 Proton, 2 Space Shuttle's and 2 Soyuz.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-23 17:40:36

1,500 metric tonnes?

The ESA is going no place fast... NASA DRM calls for as little as 480MT in the basic arcitecture, perhaps much less if Ion engines and HEO rendevous method are selected.

Commodore · 2005-03-23 18:51:22

chemical.... propulsion....

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-23 19:16:16

See, there is nothing inherintly wrong with chemcial propulsion...

...But trying to use it for an all-propulsive mission and with no prevention of boiloff?

...And all those engines... Twelve? Sixteen? Why isn't the ESA just having one cluster of engines and mounting ejectable fuel tanks? Aren't they worried one of those engines will fail?

...The Mars-side HAB is even more claustraphobic then the MarsDirect one, for a similar length of stay.

RobS · 2005-03-24 13:13:50

The surface hab is so small because they plan to keep the astronauts in Mars orbit 430 days and spend only 30 days on the surface. EVAs will be restricted to one six-hour excursion by two crew out of three on the surface) every other day, and EVAs will be limited to within 1 kilometer of the landing vehicle for walking and 5 km with a rover. They aren't planning to see very much of Mars!

-- RobS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-12-31 10:35:29

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#27 2004-12-31 11:08:05

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#28 2004-12-31 11:23:48

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#29 2004-12-31 11:29:37

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#30 2004-12-31 16:41:55

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#31 2004-12-31 19:17:10

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#32 2005-01-01 09:48:03

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#33 2005-01-01 23:52:09

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#34 2005-01-03 17:46:06

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#35 2005-01-03 22:17:55

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#36 2005-01-04 05:42:48

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#37 2005-01-04 10:03:27

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#38 2005-01-04 10:57:51

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#39 2005-01-04 11:05:53

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#40 2005-01-04 11:19:53

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#41 2005-01-04 11:22:00

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#42 2005-01-04 11:24:48

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#43 2005-01-04 12:04:04

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#44 2005-01-04 12:27:01

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#45 2005-03-21 03:29:56

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#46 2005-03-23 16:14:00

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#47 2005-03-23 17:40:36

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#48 2005-03-23 18:51:22

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#49 2005-03-23 19:16:16

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

#50 2005-03-24 13:13:50

Re: ESA - Aurora Program

Board footer