When NASA will become an ESA’s member?

Next december europeans will decide to invest in Kliper and Russians will probably become an ESA’s member. Early or late the entire world will be invited to take part in ESA (the world is one: this is the future; do we prefer war?). But without NASA? I bet: in 50 years.
Rémy

Originally Posted by Rémy MERCIER

Next december europeans will decide to invest in Kliper and Russians will probably become an ESA’s member. Early or late the entire world will be invited to take part in ESA (the world is one: this is the future; do we prefer war?). But without NASA? I bet: in 50 years.
Rémy

The beginning of the WSA (the world space agency)?
2004 forewarning:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0401/p...s.html?s=widep
Rémy

Next december europeans will decide to invest in Kliper and Russians
will probably become an ESA's member. Early or late the entire world
will be invited to take part in ESA (the world is one: this is the
future; do we prefer war?). But without NASA? I bet: in 50 years.

The sooner they team up, the better, ESA has done a pretty good job in
recent years (appart from the Beagle II mishap, which has actually increased
intrest in the Aurora project) with a lot of it's projects. And they do have
a pretty large backtrack of non-European hardware on European SCs and vice
versa. Somehow it seems to me that ESA is doing everything 'right' (or it
just appears that way) and NASA just can't do anything right. Maybe NASA
should mothball the STS and team up with the EU and Russia to build the CEV.

Then they could wory about how to complete the STS together. Since new
design efforts are already thinking about reviving the old OMS, could that
be used (improved off course) to ferry the remaining modules to the ISS? If
I'm correct the Cupola is the heaviest module left (18.5mt) with most other
weighing at least 3 tons less. This is with the range of moderln LVs. So
could an OMS rendez-vous with a space station module left in LEO and ferry
it to the ISS?

Olaf

In article ,
Olaf van der Zalm wrote:
Next december europeans will decide to invest in Kliper and Russians
will probably become an ESA's member. Early or late the entire world
will be invited to take part in ESA (the world is one: this is the
future; do we prefer war?). But without NASA? I bet: in 50 years.

The sooner they team up, the better, ESA has done a pretty good job in
recent years (appart from the Beagle II mishap, which has actually increased
intrest in the Aurora project) with a lot of it's projects. And they do have
a pretty large backtrack of non-European hardware on European SCs and vice
versa. Somehow it seems to me that ESA is doing everything 'right' (or it
just appears that way) and NASA just can't do anything right.

Although it's hard to justify, one gets the impression that ESA does
slightly more conservative missions, if only that their score for Mars
landings is 0 for 1 rather than the 5 for 6 of NASA. Huygens and
Philae are neither of them conservative, though I've no idea what the
odds on Philae [Rosetta's lander]'s successful landing are. I get the
slight impression that Arianespace may be a little easier to deal with
for moderate-to-largish launches than the US equivalents; ESA launches
smaller missions on Russian rockets for the obvious cost reasons.

There was recently a slight feeling that ESA and NASA were running
oddly parallel missions: Kepler vs Corot for bulk accurate photometry,
Messenger vs Beppo-Colombo for Mercury orbiters.

Tom

Originally Posted by Thomas Womack

In article ,
Olaf van der Zalm wrote:
Next december europeans will decide to invest in Kliper and Russians
will probably become an ESA's member. Early or late the entire world
will be invited to take part in ESA (the world is one: this is the
future; do we prefer war?). But without NASA? I bet: in 50 years.

The sooner they team up, the better, ESA has done a pretty good job in
recent years (appart from the Beagle II mishap, which has actually increased
intrest in the Aurora project) with a lot of it's projects. And they do have
a pretty large backtrack of non-European hardware on European SCs and vice
versa. Somehow it seems to me that ESA is doing everything 'right' (or it
just appears that way) and NASA just can't do anything right.

Although it's hard to justify, one gets the impression that ESA does
slightly more conservative missions, if only that their score for Mars
landings is 0 for 1 rather than the 5 for 6 of NASA. Huygens and
Philae are neither of them conservative, though I've no idea what the
odds on Philae [Rosetta's lander]'s successful landing are. I get the
slight impression that Arianespace may be a little easier to deal with
for moderate-to-largish launches than the US equivalents; ESA launches
smaller missions on Russian rockets for the obvious cost reasons.

There was recently a slight feeling that ESA and NASA were running
oddly parallel missions: Kepler vs Corot for bulk accurate photometry,
Messenger vs Beppo-Colombo for Mercury orbiters.

Tom

hi

""""""When asked about scenarios that could prompt the Europeans to look for partners elsewhere, he replies: "I really don't see any real meaning to doing that. I'm a strong believer in space exploration as a step beyond the 'the race.' To me the first woman or man on Mars would be perceived as just that. It wouldn't be a European, an American, or an Indian."."""""""

"""""""
'UN' for space exploration
The International Academy of Astronautics is finishing a report outlining a range of approaches for cooperation on future space-exploration activities, says James Zimmerman, who for 12 years served as NASA's representative in Europe and currently heads a space-policy consulting firm in McLean, Va.

One possibility would be to establish an international body outside the United Nations framework, but modeled after ESA, that would coordinate an international moon-Mars effort, says Kevin Madders, a space policy consultant in Brussels."""""
(from the same link)
good idea?
Rémy

Thomas Womack wrote:
In article ,
Olaf van der Zalm wrote:

Next december europeans will decide to invest in Kliper and Russians
will probably become an ESA's member. Early or late the entire world
will be invited to take part in ESA (the world is one: this is the
future; do we prefer war?). But without NASA? I bet: in 50 years.

The sooner they team up, the better, ESA has done a pretty good job in
recent years (appart from the Beagle II mishap, which has actually increased
intrest in the Aurora project) with a lot of it's projects. And they do have
a pretty large backtrack of non-European hardware on European SCs and vice
versa. Somehow it seems to me that ESA is doing everything 'right' (or it
just appears that way) and NASA just can't do anything right.


Although it's hard to justify, one gets the impression that ESA does
slightly more conservative missions, if only that their score for Mars
landings is 0 for 1 rather than the 5 for 6 of NASA. Huygens and
Philae are neither of them conservative, though I've no idea what the
odds on Philae [Rosetta's lander]'s successful landing are. I get the
slight impression that Arianespace may be a little easier to deal with
for moderate-to-largish launches than the US equivalents; ESA launches
smaller missions on Russian rockets for the obvious cost reasons.

Remember that the Beagle II was not an ESA mission, it was a very low
cost local British project that got a free ride with Mars Express. Thus
the ESA landing score is still 1 for 1 with the Rosetta lander as the
next attempt after the Huygens probe (maybe some other opportunity
appears before Rosetta reaches its comet).

Except for a few launch mishaps, I can't recall any ESA mission failures
once the spacecraft have been separated from the launcher. Olympus and
SOHO were out of control for some time, Hipparcos ended up in the wrong
orbit but was a complete success after some reprogramming.

--
th

Originally Posted by Thomas Womack

In article ,
Olaf van der Zalm wrote:
Next december europeans will decide to invest in Kliper and Russians
will probably become an ESA's member. Early or late the entire world
will be invited to take part in ESA (the world is one: this is the
future; do we prefer war?). But without NASA? I bet: in 50 years.

The sooner they team up, the better, ESA has done a pretty good job in
recent years (appart from the Beagle II mishap, which has actually increased
intrest in the Aurora project) with a lot of it's projects. And they do have
a pretty large backtrack of non-European hardware on European SCs and vice
versa. Somehow it seems to me that ESA is doing everything 'right' (or it
just appears that way) and NASA just can't do anything right.

Although it's hard to justify, one gets the impression that ESA does
slightly more conservative missions, if only that their score for Mars
landings is 0 for 1 rather than the 5 for 6 of NASA. Huygens and
Philae are neither of them conservative, though I've no idea what the
odds on Philae [Rosetta's lander]'s successful landing are. I get the
slight impression that Arianespace may be a little easier to deal with
for moderate-to-largish launches than the US equivalents; ESA launches
smaller missions on Russian rockets for the obvious cost reasons.

There was recently a slight feeling that ESA and NASA were running
oddly parallel missions: Kepler vs Corot for bulk accurate photometry,
Messenger vs Beppo-Colombo for Mercury orbiters.

Tom

hi
ESA's Space Science:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMG0KR1VED_index_0.html
then you click on "Science Mission" (left and down) and you have the list with links, a long and interesting list.
Rémy

Rémy MERCIER wrote:

:"""""""
:'UN' for space exploration
:The International Academy of Astronautics is finishing a report
utlining a range of approaches for cooperation on future
:space-exploration activities, says James Zimmerman, who for 12 years
:served as NASA's representative in Europe and currently heads a
:space-policy consulting firm in McLean, Va.
:
:One possibility would be to establish an international body outside the
:United Nations framework, but modeled after ESA, that would coordinate
:an international moon-Mars effort, says Kevin Madders, a space policy
:consultant in Brussels."""""
from the same link)
:good idea?

Yeah, that's all we need. MORE bureaucracy to get in the way.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

Yeah, that's all we need. MORE bureaucracy to get in the way.


My predictions

1: The first manned NASA/ESA mission will suffer a midair colllision at
10,00 meters altitude. With a pig.

2: The first NASA/ESA landing on the moon will occur after requesting
landing clearance. In Chinese.

3: The first words uttered by the first NASA/ESA astroperson upon landing on
Mars will be "Can I have a pair of those Virgin Galactic wings for my
.....kid".

You heard it here first.

On Sun, 28 May 2006 10:41:36 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Lou
Adornato" not@home made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Yeah, that's all we need. MORE bureaucracy to get in the way.


My predictions

1: The first manned NASA/ESA mission will suffer a midair colllision at
10,00 meters altitude. With a pig.

Coincidentally (I hope) the current SRD for the CEV requires that the
vehicle be able to sustain a collision with a 2.2. kg bird at 3.5
kilometers altitude. I'll leave the implications of this requirement
for vehicle structural design to the reader.