ESA feeling weightless and unwanted amid proposed NASA cuts NASA's "skinny" budget has rattled its allies. After years of close cooperation, the European Space Agency (ESA) is looking jilted, while others describe the US space scene as adrift in gloom and doubt. ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher reacted cautiously to the proposed 24 percent annual budget cut, which has yet to make …
At least the ESA now has its own launch capability again but there are other partners out there other than NASA such as Japan, India and even China and the UAE. But science, and this is main aim of ESA, will suffer. And, over time, so will the US. I wonder how many careers were inspired by the sheer tenacity and openness of the early NASA missions. compulsory PBS link
I've spent over 3 decades working in the space agency on the right-hand of the pond; much of that time involved working on ESA-funded programmes. I can say, from first-hand knowledge, that ESA would prefer to work with partners such as NASA simply because it is easier to do big projects when the costs of spread across multiple partners, plus having multiple perspectives can enhance a programme and bring in completely unexpected benefits. However, ESA has a huge capability to stand on its own two feet (more so than many detractors understand or accept) so while cut-backs at NASA are not great news, they are not as catastrophic as some like to make out.
(Mine's the one with the blue touch-paper for an Ariane-6 in its pocket).
"However, ESA has a huge capability to stand on its own two feet (more so than many detractors understand or accept) so while cut-backs at NASA are not great news, they are not as catastrophic as some like to make out."
On the partnership programs there is a lot of data sharing which is a great thing for all participants. Multiple perspectives is good, but there's also loads of talent at all of the national space agencies so there will be expertise in all sorts of niche disciplines that one country may not have on their own.
It was killed because ESA got shuttle rides, but it's important nowadays to prove that we (Europe) are able to launch independantly people in space wiithout itching a ride in Russia or the US.
We have the technology, it was just easier and probably cheaper to hitch rides here and there. ( it's not as if ESA wasn't lobbing stuff in space on a regular basis from Kourou. We also have cargo capsules that reached the ISS several time without any issue. )
Not sure if we should restart Hermes, but we could probably coordinate some of the other projects, including Rocket Labs, a bit better. Unfortunately, the ESA is not really set up for project managing the industrial side of stuff – this was partly internal politics but partly also not to piss off the Americans who were happier throwing more money at things – and people forget that ESA isn't an EU tentacle but Yet Another NGO with all the politicking and bureaucracy goes with it. For good reason, we're not going to have our own "Kennedy" moment, but we can still make things move surprisingly well.
Technology improves all of the time so restarting Hermes is likely less desirable than using it as a framework to develop something more up to day.
It's like the Atlas V when ULA couldn't procure any more Russian engines. They could try to get somebody to produce a replacement, but since that would require all sorts of engineering, it made more sense to spend a couple of bucks more for a more modern rocket, Vulcan.
"We have the technology, it was just easier and probably cheaper to hitch rides here and there"
But do we (Europe) actually have the money? The return on science investment is usually very, very slow, and Europe needs to look at spending a fair bit more on defence as an immediate and future priority, it needs to consider the broader technology investment needs because US companies can't be relied upon now, there's other science than simply spaffing rockets into orbit, and big investment needs for day to day nuclear (or renewables and storage), plus fusion research. Meanwhile, most European states are seeing health and social care costs rising dramatically as people inconsiderately live on long after they stop contributing economically.
I'm sure plenty of people will be voting for the downvote button, and feel free: But at least rationalise where Europe (in its continental sense) should spend its limited resources. We can't pick up and mend everything that the Fat Orange Felon is breaking, and the bits that we might, we certainly can't mend as fast as he's intentionally breaking them.
Spending money on something like ESA is probably more efficient than many other projects: the money will be spent locally are kept in circulation. Many big ticket defence items will take much longer to funnel the money into the economy.
The real enemy is mission creep.
"Spending money on something like ESA is probably more efficient than many other projects"
How so? There appears to be little strong research to show that science spending drives increased growth; there's plenty of wordy narrative and claims of correlation, and obviously if you're a wealthier economy you can spend more on science, but I'm not seeing much that persuades me that spending more on science is a particularly efficient investment compared to say eliminating .
"Many big ticket defence items will take much longer to funnel the money into the economy."
Reasoning? If we were talking about (say) a European strategic nuclear deterrent, I can see little economic difference to making rockets to put satellites or people into orbit, and similar potential for science spin-offs. If building tanks, ships or drones, then the money filters through to real economy much faster than any form of rocket science because they use proportionately more basic materials and labour than fancy science projects.
I think hard arguments going beyond correlation will be hard to find, but there are the obvious poster children of things becoming possible only because of the space programme or CERN.
Large sciecne projects always have a high degree of uncertainty, partly because it may involve groundbreaking research that hasn't been done before, but also it has to be said, because boffins are often not necessarily very good at tenders, timelines and budgets. But even then, overspend is still largely in the local economy.
Over at the military and you have the same challenges but often even more political interference, and industries keen to trouser all that lovely cash. Just look at deadline and budget overruns on nuclear power stations or next generation fighter jets.
But even in business, if you're responsible for the multi-million SAP rollout that is late and well over budget, you might hope for a promotion. Or at least that's how it often seems!
What have seen in some areas and countries over the last decade or so, is the application of "lean engineering" to see if the bluesky projects can be done for less, India has been particularly successful at this. This is why partnering with smaller companies, though not the dreaded start ups, that can use their commercial expertise on some challenges, especially when it comes to serial production. This is why I suggested Rocket Labs as a potential partner, which seems to have been doing just this while Musk boasts about Space X's record (it is impressive, but also bankrolled by the government).
It's difficult to get these things right, especially in a democracy, when priorities often change at whim.
"But do we (Europe) actually have the money?"
In short: Yes
More importantly, the benefits (contracts) for each country involved are directly tied to how much they put into the project in the first place - pay-for-play and not as subject to "congressional pork" hijackings as happens in the USA
Anti-intellectualism isn't a large problem in Europe (apart from Britain) as the results of letting that kind of thing prevail are well documented in recent/not-so-recent history and as a result we know better than letting religous zealots, or next-quarter-focussed "biznezzmen" dictate the narrative
Most importantly, budget for science/space programs is NOT subject to populist pressures - This is why the LHC managed to be built whilst Texas efforts are now an underground documnet storage facility
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
