FLUG REVUE December 2005: ESA Mars plans outlined

December 2005

ESA´S MARS PLANS OUTLINED

By Matthias Gründer

Let us refresh our memories: in September 2005, NASA unveiled its future Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) project and its plans to conduct regular flights to the moon with it, commencing in 2018. These plans met with mixed reactions in Europe. Whereas high-ranking representatives of the space industry welcomed the USA's plans, at the same time they took exception to the fact that no international partners were mentioned in connection with the projects. As a result, fear is rife that the Americans really want to go it alone with their moon landing and their subsequent planned conquest of Mars. But it is scarcely conceivable that they should do so, since for cost reasons the “Moon, Mars and beyond” programme is only achievable as an international team effort, which is why in the original text the President's initiative consistently spoke of collaboration – even if the USA was always in charge.

European representatives of industry are now somewhat alarmed by the fact that there is not a single mention of a possible partnership in the new plans. At present ESA does not have a problem with this, as its long-term research goals – always assuming that the Council of Ministers approves the necessary funding – lie not on the moon but on Mars, and envisage the following stages:

Entry Vehicle Demonstrator (EVD) to test a re-entry vehicle (2007) as a precursor to
ExoMars, a European planetary probe with a separate rover on the Mars surface (2009);
Mars Sample Return (MSR) to collect and bring back rock samples (2011), with a second, similar mission in 2014, which would also entail running the first Human Mission Technologies Demonstrator experiment on the ISS;
Technological Pre-cursor Mission (2018), followed by
automatic Mars Mission (2026), dispatch of the
cargo element of the first manned mission (2030) and the
first manned mission to Mars (2033).

Somewhat lost in the midst of this ambitious Mars programme is the proposal that in 2024, six years after the planned US landing, the first European astronauts would work on the moon, as a precursor to and as training for the manned Mars flight. One needs to bear in mind here that the above Aurora research programme was spelt out in February 2004, shortly after the US President had announced his ideas on the future role of NASA. It presupposes that the Europeans have neither the intention nor the money to launch their own manned moon mission over the next few years.

So if, halfway through the schedule of events, ESA astronauts are suddenly envisaged standing on the moon, this is likely to be speculation based on the principle of “quid pro quo”, i.e. the exchange of hardware and services, as is being practised with the launch of the ESA laboratory module, Columbus, for the ISS: the Europeans pay for the transportation into orbit on board a shuttle not with money, but with the supply of assemblies, such as the logistics modules, the nodes or the cupolas.

Compared with the space industry, ESA received preferential treatment, since whereas the representatives of the former to all intents and purposes only found out about NASA's new plans from the media, ESA's Paris head office was informed in advance and accordingly reacted in a relaxed way. There was bound to be co-operation over the manned lunar research, so we were told, but only if the USA provided the relevant hardware, that is to say, launch vehicles and spacecraft. ESA was not prepared for this because its long-term programme was aimed at Mars, but it could make life-support systems and cabin control technology available to NASA. This in turn might one day enable a European astronaut to land on the moon.

This response shows the European dilemma only too clearly: ESA had decided on its Aurora programme long before the Americans and had never made a secret of the fact that Mars lay at the centre of their interest, yet it was completely steamrollered by the President's initiative. This initiative appears to have a significantly more stable financial base and seeks to take the moon before heading for Mars. This in turn would be very convenient for the European space industry, if it had a genuine chance of being involved in NASA's plans. Having an American on the moon in 2018 is a lot preferable to the producers of the technology than having a European on Mars in nearly 30 years. On the other hand there are still several thousand people employed in the space industry in Europe, who need to be put to good use if the core competencies are to be retained.

INTERESTING PROJECTS FOR RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION

For this reason also, high-ranking representatives of the European space industry recently went on the offensive and presented their own proposals for lunar research, with the EADS Lunar Infrastructure for Exploration (LIFE) project at the centre. This would entail installing a long-wave radio telescope constructed entirely out of European components and financed with European funding on one of the moon's polar caps. The estimated cost would be a billion euros, a much more acceptable price if it is spread over the duration of the programme. Notwithstanding this, Europe would remain a high-technology location and the industry would have planning certainty without any “European holes being drilled next to the American ones”, as the EADS top management put it. Expressed more simply, it would mean remaining independent, on an equal footing with NASA, and, for better or worse, not being dependent on NASA's goodwill.

Meanwhile OHB in Bremen is proposing a somewhat smaller project, sending a BioHab containing minute living creatures and plants to the moon's surface in order to research the effects of mild weightlessness and higher radiation. Once again, this would entail having reliable plans and work for a foreseeable period without losing sight of the long-term objective of Mars. Both proposals not only reflect the efforts of the industry to fill its order books and make comfortable profits again, but they also offer ambitious scientific ideas.

To this extent it would actually be worth considering whether, in view of the overwhelming US presence in manned and unmanned space research, a rethink might not be appropriate in Europe too. After all, “Moon, Mars and Beyond” was initiated by the US President, whereas European heads of state prefer to keep a low profile when it comes to utterances on the future of spaceflight. It is not too late to modify Aurora again, and without loss of face either. We should keep our sights on Mars, but allow a small detour to the moon. For if the powers that be stick obstinately to the present line, then European astronauts will one day fly to Mars in spacecraft that were built in other countries because the European space industry has ceased to exist.

From FLUG REVUE 12/2005

Last updated 10 November 2005

FLUG REVUE, Ubierstr. 83, 53173 Bonn, Germany