Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science Technology

Next Goals For The ESA 178

Posted by timothy from the cheese-mining-lunar-base dept.
zeux writes "With all the news we got recently from space I tried to gather some information about the next goals of the ESA (European Space Agency). Along with a space vehicle designed to carry supplies to the ISS between 2004 and 2013, they are working on the new 'Vega' launcher (2006) and still playing with the SMART-1 probe which is slowly heading to the moon testing an ion drive that is ten times more efficient than the usual chemical systems (1500 hours cumulated thrust time so far)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next Goals For The ESA More

Next Goals For The ESA

Comments Filter:
  • Efficient, but not fast. :) 1500 hours thrust time and they're still not there? Meh.

    • Re:Ion drives... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:32AM (#8028964)
      If you RTFA'd, you would realize that the satelite isn't on a direct moonshot, it's spiralling out from an earth orbit, to a lunar orbit. This would be hella slow compaired to a direct shot, which should get it there in a few days at worst. The thing is traveling at 3850km/h, it's just not doing it with a direct vector to the moon, rather, a spiral.

    • Re:Ion drives... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:42AM (#8029020) Homepage
      Interestingly, technically neither efficient, nor fast.

      But they are economical of fuel. Jettisoning the exhaust at such high speed means you need hardly any fuel; which is good, but the energy source is an issue.

      The reason that they are inefficient is that the exhaust velocity is too high. It turns out that the optimum exhaust velocity for minimum energy is about 2/3 the mission delta-v- and the delta-v to get to the moon is about 4.1 km/s whereas an ion drive exhaust velocity is usually around 30km/s... hugely too high from an energetic point of view.

      Ok, big deal- it's only energy right? Wrong. The solar panels end up pretty enormous, and pretty heavy, pretty quickly. Nuclear energy? Power/weight ratio is little better.

      Still, it works, but it's not even as efficient as chemical rocketry; chemical rockets can hit 80+% energetic efficiency in fact (it's very high because of the high temperatures used in the combustion chamber, rocket engines are actually classed as heat engines).

      • Re:Ion drives... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:05AM (#8029132)

        Still, it works, but it's not even as efficient as chemical rocketry

        One word: fusion. As soon as fusion comes along, coupled with ion drives, chemical rocketry is history. Period.

        • Re:Ion drives... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Aglassis ( 10161 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:50AM (#8029294)
          You said: "One word: fusion. As soon as fusion comes along, coupled with ion drives, chemical rocketry is history. Period.'

          Unlikely.

          There are two main designs for a fission rocket.
          (1) To couple a semi-conventional PWR or BWR with an ion engine. The big downside to this is that you have to have a large secondary system to use the steam to make electricity. What this means is that you have to have a large heat sink (large radiators) and lots of moving parts. A design like the GT-MHR could simplify this, but not hugely so.
          (2) Using a bladder of fuel (hydrogen, or water or whatever), you use this as coolant to a critical reactor that jets the superheated portion directly to space. The downside is that this doesn't make electricity, so you would have to divert some of the coolant (which requires construction of the additional secondary systems) or use solar panels or RTGs to electrically power the spacecraft (there will be additional power requirements due to reactor safety equipment).

          There are two main designs for fusion power:
          (1) Tokamak: basically shaped like a donut, a low atomic number elemental plasma is magnetically confined and heated (with I^2*R losses or X-rays) to the point where fusion occurs. The means of useful energy transfer is via neutrons emitted which hit a water tank surrounding the fusion reactor. From here its just like the secondary side of a normal fission nuclear reactor (ex 1 above).
          (2) A pellet of low atomic number elements is simultaneously hit by energetic radition from all directions compressing it until fusion occurs. Heat transfer like above.

          You could argue that either of these fusion reactions could operate like the fission reaction #2 above (with part of coolant directed to make electricity), but an important point is that a significant fraction of the energy released by fusion (if it ever produces more energy than is required to induce it) is required to sustain it. This requires the construction of a very large secondary system compared to that of the fission reactor (a lot more heat being transferred). Since a fission reactor will probably provide way more power than is needed anyways, there is no reason to build a much heavier fusion reactor.
        • The good news is that fusion is only 30 years away, unlike 50 years ago, when it was 50 years away.

      • Depends on mission Re:Ion drives... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:20AM (#8029178) Homepage Journal
        OTOH, a fairly fast trip to Mars requires about 20 kps in velocity changes. Which makes a 30 kps ion drive just about right.

        But there's complexities there, too. Most of these velocity changes come at the beginning and end of the journey (getting into an elliptical orbit, then getting out of it once you reach Mars).
        • Huh?

          The 30 km/s mentioned by the parent poster is a VELOCITY, while you're referring to a rate of change of velocity, ie ACCELERATION. The poster was referring to the velocity of the gas leaving the thruster, which is totally different from either the velocity or acceleration of the craft.

          From that information alone, you can not figure out the acceleration of the ship, as you also need to know the mass/mass flow rate of the particles leaving the thruster. Actually, ion thrusters have extremely low accel
      • The reason that they are inefficient is that the exhaust velocity is too high. It turns out that the optimum exhaust velocity for minimum energy is about 2/3 the mission delta-v- and the delta-v to get to the moon is about 4.1 km/s whereas an ion drive exhaust velocity is usually around 30km/s... hugely too high from an energetic point of view.

        They're not trying to minimize the amount of energy used. They're trying to minimize the weight of the vehicle. Yes, the solar panels have to be bigger if they ej

      • Re:Ion drives... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bigfishbowl ( 528934 )
        Perhaps they are not the most efficient for Mars travel, but much beyond that, give me a break (having not done the math for Mars, I don't know). Chemical rockets spit far too much of their inital mass out the back to be even *somewhat* considered for longer term missions (remember the rocket equation?). There are several differnt kinds of "ion" engines all of which exceed 50% efficiency. At this point it becomes a bit more important to define "efficiency" - (power in)/(power out) may not necessarly be re
        • Just one nit pic; I agree with you except for this point:

          the field obviously has merit or I would not have funding.

          All fields that have merit don't neccessarily get funding and all fields that have funding don't neccessarily have merit. I believe ion drives are good, but based on their merit not their funding.
        • Efficiency isn't the most important metric- usually cost is.

          The main potential advantage that ion drives have is that the delta-v is potentially huge (although most current thrusters often wear out fairly quickly- each giving maybe 1 tonne km/s, although you can have multiple thrusters.) In practice, the fuel they can use is often very expensive.

          The energetic efficiency that you mention is related to the kinetic energy of the exhaust divided by the supplied energy- that's a different number to the efficie

    • Re:Ion drives... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Plocmstart ( 718110 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:46AM (#8029039)
      A little flash animation for those confused about ion drives: http://www.esa.int/export/esaSC/SEM3K81P4HD_index_ 0.html [esa.int]. Of course depends on mass, momentum, etc. too....

  • Apart from the costs of launch (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GonzoDave ( 743486 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:24AM (#8028932)
    What are the technical obstacles to Lagrange point colonies?

    • Re:Apart from the costs of launch (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Having them thrown back at you when the colonies revolt.

      Sieg Jion!

    • Re:Apart from the costs of launch (Score:5, Funny)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:35AM (#8028983)
      What are the technical obstacles to Lagrange point colonies?

      Mostly all that vacuum and radiation and fast moving rocks and stuff.

      Ya know. The usual.

      KFG

    • Re:Apart from the costs of launch (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Would a colony actually *stay* in the lagrange point?

      I imagine that the point is moving around the earth at the moon orbit speed, and whilst within the point, the gravity of both moon and earth would have no influence on the colony -> ie it wouldn't be holding it in orbit to follow the point around as required...

      I also imagine that putting a colony *near* the point would be silly as the forces on the colony structure would come from different directions at different times of the day, and thus require s
      • Would a colony actually *stay* in the lagrange point?

        http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/l ag range.html

        KFG

      • Re:Apart from the costs of launch (Score:5, Informative)

        by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:52AM (#8029065)

        Would a colony actually *stay* in the lagrange point?

        L4 and L5 are the stable Lagrange points; these are the ones in the same orbit as the moon, but leading or trailing by 1/6th of a revolution. The other points, L1-L3, are unstable: while the effective gravitational force at these points is zero, an infinitessimal displacement away from a point will lead to a force which is also directed away from the point, leading to runaway.

        So, in answer to the quesiton, a colony at L4 or L5 would stay in position without further assitance. At L1-L3, it would need positioning rockets to stop it from wandering. This in fact is how SOHO (the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) remains in its Sun-Earth L1 position (inside the Earth's orbit, on the line between Earth and Sun).

      • Would a colony actually *stay* in the lagrange point?

        Do the Trojan Asteroids stay in, or at least near the Lagrange points in Jupiter's orbit? Yes, I believe they do. The Trojan Points are the two most stable Lagrange points. In fact, the biggest problem with L4/L5 colonies is the other "space trash" that's bound to be there: dust, pebbles, small rocks and so on.

    • Just off the top of my head:

      Food
      Water
      Getting there
      Getting back
      Getting funded
      etc...

      Basically, the usual suspects.

    • What are the technical obstacles to Lagrange point colonies?

      Keeping CowboyNeal tied down to a single point on the surface.

      Allowing him to move around displaces the actual Lagrange points enough to make it unfeasible unless he is kept stationary.
    • Well, I hear it's fine if you got the time
      and the ten to get yourself in.
      A hmm, hmm.
      And I hear it's tight most ev'ry night,
      but now I might be mistaken.
      hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm.

      Have mercy. ;)

  • New pictures... (Score:4, Informative)

    by AIX-Hood ( 682681 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:25AM (#8028942)
    Well, to give it equal footing to the Spirit, here's some new high res photos that the ESA's orbiting photo taker took. Apparently there's also one of it looking down on the crater that the Sprit is in. http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/in dex.html
  • I had read somewhere that an 'ion drive " might be the basis for interstellar travel (not necessarily a manned mission), because it's so effiecient. I don't know the truth of that, though. On a second note, the ATV is awe-inspiring, but I wonder how Lockheeds new hybrid space-plane idea wll work in with that. (POP-Sci just ran an article in the last issue that subscribers got, feburary, I think)
    • http://www.space.com , search "Ion Drive", "Chemical Drive" and "M2P2" if you're interested

    • Re:This is pretty neat! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stevelinton ( 4044 ) <sal@dcs.st-and.ac.uk> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:57AM (#8029097) Homepage
      An ion drive is still nowhere near effective enough for a manned
      interstellar probe.You need a fairly pure fusion drive, or antimatter, or some flavour of beam-rider to get interstellar journey times down to a few years or decades without completely silly mass ratios.

      • I thought the problem with getting instellar journey times down to a few years or decades had everything to do with the speed of light and very little to do with anything else?

        • Getting close to light-speed is also a problem. All rockets essentially work by converting some of the initial vehicle (the fuel) into energy and using it to accelerate another part of the vehicle backwards (the reactin mass), thereby forcing the remaining part of the vehicle forwards. This covers chemical rockets, ion drives, mass drivers, fission rockets of various kinds, project Orion and so on.

          There is a simple equation relating the speed at which you can throw the exhasut backwards (in the ships rest

  • An ommision of their current projects... (Score:5, Informative)

    by kommakazi ( 610098 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:34AM (#8028974)
    The ESA also has a probe named Huygens [esa.int] headed for Titan, the largest moon of Saturn that will land on the surface in 2005 and send back photos. Titan is the only moon in our solar system with a thick atmosphere. It is believed it may be similar to that of Earth's millions of years ago.

  • Ion Drive Mass? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:34AM (#8028975)
    I've only read that Xenon is used in current Ion drives... kinda wondering why more common gasses *read, nitrogen, probably the cheapest* can't be used. Anyone know?

    • Re:Ion Drive Mass? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ak_hepcat ( 468765 ) <slashdot&akhepcat,com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:53AM (#8029077) Homepage Journal
      Probably has to do with the number of available electrons to strip away.

      Xenon is pretty plentiful (8 valence electrons), and compared to nitrogen (5 valence electrons), seems to have just a few more electrons available with little increase in mass, while still remaining a noble, inert gas.

      IANAC
      • Anyway--- I'm up late at night just to reply to a random note ;-]
        And I say how would we know how to know whether or not a bacteria that did in fact die from acid rain may or may not have created something that resembled an art form somewhere on the surface of mars? And if first life did that then what ;-]?

        And if we found what looked like a random tear drop later? then what?
        Or perhaps a large form of a colony of one-celled etc, etc, & et al.

        HMM... anyone one care if it turned out both sides of that a
      • Xenon atoms are more massive than most. The other thing that comes in handy is that it's relatively easy to ionize. It's a big atom with the outer electrons far away from the nucleus and loosely bound.
      • Why not Radon? It also has 8 valence electrons, but more mass.

    • Re:Ion Drive Mass? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stevelinton ( 4044 ) <sal@dcs.st-and.ac.uk> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:54AM (#8029083) Homepage
      You need an element which is easily ionized. you also want the individual ions to be pretty massive. A bonus is if the ionized version of the element is not too reactive. Early drives used mercury or cesium, but they had a habit of sticking to things and clogging them up, and had to be heated before they were ionized.

      i'm pretty sure the cost of the xenon is negligible compared to almost any other cost around.

    • Re:Ion Drive Mass? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Xenon has an atomic mass of 131.30 (element 54 on the periodic table). More mass per atom than nitrogen (atomic mass 14 and change, element 7) means more thrust for the same number of atoms that are carried. And as a noble gas it doesn't react with anything.
    • Simple, it's the most massive "noble" gas. Atomic weight of 131. As mass x velocity = mass x velocity an ion of Xenon gives the greatest thrust, compared to Nitrogen with an AW of 14, So Xenon would provide 131/14 ( 9 ) times more thrust.
      • Radon [webelements.com] seems to be the most massive noble gas, but I guess it is useless here "because of its short half life (the longest life isotope has a half life of less than 4 days)".

    • Re:Ion Drive Mass? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ancil ( 622971 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:05AM (#8029128)
      1. Xenon is pretty heavy per atom. Because of how the ideal gas law works, that means a given mass of Xenon takes less volume than lighter gases at equal pressure / temp.

      2. As a noble gas, Xenon is mostly inert -- important for a long mission where you don't want, for example, vaporized mercury corroding parts in your ion drive.

      3. The cost of Xenon is non-existant compared to overall mission cost ($500 million or more? No idea, but moon shots ain't cheap).

      • You said: "2. As a noble gas, Xenon is mostly inert..."

        This of course only applies to the not yet ionised atoms. The reason Xenon is an inert element is that it's electron configuration makes less chemically reactive.

    • Xenon? I love that game!

  • SMART-2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:36AM (#8028987)

    SMART-1 [esa.int] is part of the Small Missions for Advanced Research in Technology; these missions are specifically designed to develop new space-based technologies. A sister mission, due for launch in June 2007 is SMART-2 [esa.int], which will be a testbed for laser ranging. The technology will eventually be put to use by LISA (Laser Interferometry Space Antenna), a proposed ESA mission intended to look for the gravitational waves predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

    The knowhow obtained from SMART-2 will also prove instrumental in developing ESA's Infra-Red Space Interferometer [esa.int], known informally as Darwin. Darwin, part of ESA's Horizons 2000 programme, will consist of 6 infra-red telescopes flying in precise formation, with the aim of performing nulling interferometry of nearby solar-type stars. Darwin will be sensitive enough to detect the infra-red absorption-line signatures of water, ozone and carbon dioxide in the atmospheres terrestrial-sized planets orbiting one of these stars; these signatures, if detected together, would amount to strong evidence for extraterrestrial life.

  • IIRC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anzha ( 138288 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:37AM (#8028995) Homepage Journal

    The Italians had to fight tooth and nail to get the Vega launch system to be accepted by ESA for development. Part of it was, again, iirc, because it was would be separate from Arianespace. The whole point was to have an European developed follow-on for the Scout rockets that the Italians were building under license from the US.

    The ATV is an excellent idea. I find it a little sad at this point that ESA hasn't successfully gone down the path of an independant manned space flight capability. Sure, they can use the Russians or the US or even the Chinese, I suppose, but it'd be interesting to see ESA come up with their own. I know they tried the Hermes space plane, but that turned out to be something of a boondoggle, didn't it?

    • but it'd be interesting to see ESA come up with their own Yeah, but you'd have to see an end to European bureaucracy first. Which isn't going to happen to a scale necessary for developing manned space flight. Concorde was a miracle, and probably the limit of English/French co operation

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:IIRC (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fucksl4shd0t ( 630000 )

          Also let us not forget the last time Europe send somebody into the unknown. He stumbled upon a new continent. Look what mess that brought us in. Europe does not want to make that same mistake again. ;-)

          Yeah, Europe doesn't want to have some upstart criminals on some new continent to bail them out of two world wars that they couldn't solve themselves, do they? ;)

          Other things DO work. CERN is ione, wich brought us HTTP. Airbus is another example. The question remains if Europe wants it at this moment. It

    • Re:IIRC (Score:4, Informative)

      by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:12AM (#8029855)
      Although Hermes is gone, ESA is quietly working on capsules, such as this [esa.int].

      And I agree ATV is an excellent idea, but then I'd say that - I'm working on it ;-)

      • Re:IIRC (Score:3, Informative)

        by cheesybagel ( 670288 )
        Actually, ESA had some concepts for a Crew Transfer Vehicle [astronautix.com] capsule, after the Hermes mini shuttle proved to be a failure. However it was decided not to fund development besides the ARD [esrin.esa.it] reentry demonstrator. They decided to help the USA in the "more advanced" X-38 CRV instead. But then NASA pulled the plug and the rest is history.

        There are currently moves to design the next generation launch system after Ariane 5. It is supposed to come online sometime after 2020. The Germans made a study called FESTIP [esrin.esa.it]. T

    • I think the ESA is on the right track - there's no point in spending money duplicating other people's technology. Spend it doing something useful and different. SMART is an example of this.

  • Moon (Score:4, Insightful)

    by skydude_20 ( 307538 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:42AM (#8029019) Journal
    Looking at the ESA site, if we're thinking of going back to the moon soon and possibly bringing back a bunch of old Apollo systems, why don't we buy some of the ESA's ATV's [esa.int] and slap on a larger booster? seems like it'd be a nicer ride (once modified) than the old Apollo craft. With the added bonus of being a spacecraft that is actually in production (no need to try and re-invient the wheel).

    • Re:Moon (Score:4, Interesting)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @03:01AM (#8029336) Journal

      Apart from the fact that you will have to modify the ATV pretty heavily to make it work... for starter, even I can see that you must:
      - Provide a larger engine for orbital manuvers. The old Apollo system had a trust of 97860 N (roughtly ren (metric) tons), while the ATV has an enginetrust of a paltry 1960N (or about 1/50 of the Apollo).
      - Provide some form of manrated capability. The ATV is launced unmanned, and as far as I can see from the article carries no life support system on it's own.
      - Some form of reentry capability must be provided, unless you plan to dock at the ISS on the way home. If you do plan to dock at the ISS, you need to carry enought fuel to brake down and enter earth orbit.
      I fear that modefying a ATV can turn out to cost more and provide a less optimum vessel for going to the moon than a new design based on the Apollo. Despite the fact that the design of the Apollo is close to 40 years, they got a lot of things right, and a few wrong. Possible (cheap) ways to optimise the Apollo design might include:
      - Use of a Soyuz-shaped return vehicle (better volume-weight ratio than the coneshaped Apollo).
      - Modern electrics (lighter, less bulky, uses less power).
      - Solar panels instead of fuelcells (solar panels have come a long way since the early sixties, and you don't have to carry along oxygen and hydrogen to make them work).
      - An ion engine for long duration, low trust burns to optimise trajectory (?).

      I am not a rocketscientist, but I don't see how the ATV cam be a good choice to go to the moon. It's designed to be a cargotruck, not a manned vessel for going far into space.

    • It would probably be cheaper if they were to take the apollo blueprints and build the same moon ship using today's technologies.

      They would probably be able to shave 5-10 tons from the launch mass just by using modern materials alone, not to mention the miniturisation that has occured in most of the equipment they would need to carry.

    • No sense sending a same size ship to there. It would be much better to design one that can carry a large amount of cargo and ppl (6-8) to their and then have a small return craft.

      Unfortunatly, it will require a new launcher, but that has been needed for 20 years.

  • ATV (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aglassis ( 10161 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:44AM (#8029031)
    The ATV design strikes me as particularly interesting because it brings up a point that I've been wondering for awhile: Why don't we have more automated exploration and maintenance vehicles in Earth orbit. It seems to me that a spacecraft that could launch, orbit earth, and return to earth (not that the ATV can do that) without humans onboard and built in a mass manufactured way would be extraordinarily effective for Earth orbit science experiments. It might also be useful for maintenance of high value satellites (like HST). Since Earth orbit is almost real-time transmission there is no reason to think that putting a mechanical arm on a spacecraft to do maintenance would be any different that a surgeon doing a remote operation via a mechanical hand. The most complicated part would be the approach of the satellite to be maintained, but since the Space Shuttle obviously had no problem doing this there is no reason to believe that an automated spacecraft (with real-time human backup in a controlling station) couldn't do the same (a little more complicated than the ATV's purpose of docking with the ISS, but I don't think its inanely so).

  • That's just fine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ktanmay ( 710168 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:47AM (#8029046)

    Just because Bush unveiled grandiose plans for NASA, and they took note of it and adjusted a few of their plans (which in retrospect were due for a change anyway) does not mean other space agencies will follow suit.

    The reaction given to Bush's plans by other nations have been circumspect, lets see where this all goes after the elections are over.

  • New roles for ESA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wrmrxxx ( 696969 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:51AM (#8029060)
    Bush's moon and mars plan seem like such a comprehensive change for NASA that they might also have a serious impact on the ESA. With NASA's budget redirected into the new plan, will the ESA pick up the slack with greater involvement in the ISS beyond the ATV? Or will they have a significant involvement in the moon and mars plan - maybe using the ATV to supply a moon base? It would be a shame for them to spend a fortune developing the ATV, only to be told that it was no longer needed because the ISS was no longer maintainable due to a lack of US funds.

  • ESA and NASA covering each other? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sailracer6 ( 262434 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:55AM (#8029089) Journal
    So it seems that ESA is working on a next-gen cargo craft, and NASA is working on a next-gen human transporter. Could it be that Europe and the United States are actually splitting the design costs necessary to replace the Space Shuttle?

    These two separate systems can do what the Shuttle could do by itself -- haul cargo and move people -- and I'm betting it's cheaper, too, to do things with two separate devices.

  • Current active spacecraft (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:38AM (#8029267)
    Nine Planets [nineplanets.org] has a big list of all spacecraft - past, current and future (although it is a little out of date).
  • With the Control Center for the transport to the ISS being in France, would this be the "French Transport to ISS" or the "Freedom Transport to ISS"? I still call them French Fries....

  • Long term big planning (Score:5, Informative)

    by Iron Sun ( 227218 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:52AM (#8029299)
    ESA has a long term exploration program called Aurora [esa.int] that aims to take humans to the Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2030. This was announced some time ago, well ahead of Bush's proclamation. The nearer term goals include ExoMars, a long-duration rover, and a Mars sample return mission with the ambitious launch date of 2011.
  • Go to the moon and bring back our flag!!!

  • Beagle (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @04:06AM (#8029569)
    Beagle is alive! I just got a message from it in my inbox! Lemme double-click it and see what it says..

    Oh.. wait...

  • BBC: Europe's stunning Red Planet view (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Stunning view of Mars from ESA [bbc.co.uk]

  • Earth observation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by d-Orb ( 551682 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @08:09AM (#8030460) Homepage

    It's interesting that one of ESA's greatest achievement areas, namely Earth Observation (things like ERS 1/2, Envisat) are not mentioned. This is an important area, with all the exciting stuff about oceans rising and engulfing towns and the Seychelles (serves them right for living in a bloody paradise :D). There are a large number of unknowns regarding the Earth's environment that could be alleviated by a (relatively) cheap fleet of EO microsatellites. I don't know whether ESA wants do commit more budget to these areas (after all, a lot of the stuff on Envisat is only of very limited commercial interest, and they seem to be pushing for commercial use), but it certainly would help. On the other hand, looking at the deforestation rate over Siberia might not be as cool as putting some gimp on the Moon...

  • As has been done in the past with Soviet missions, both Mars and Venus will get probes, using some spares and the design from the first launch for the second probe.

    In this case, the second probe will be launched as Venus Express [esa.int]. This will be launched in Nov 2005, also by Soyuz from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazachstan.

    Soyuz is working out so well, that ESA is building Soyuz launch facilities in French Guiana [space.com] - which is of course MUCH nearer the equator and is E.U. territory. (It's a problem for Russia tha

  • Yes, but when are they going to put monkies in orbit? Because after that, people will not be too far behind. I like monkies.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Close