The European Service Module is one of ESA’s many contributions to NASA’s Orion spacecraft and the Artemis programme. Credit: ESA
ESA held its Annual Directors General Press Conference at its PARIS HQ on 11 January 2024. A recording is available here and a slide deck here. Among the many topics covered, one generated several burning questions: NASA having just a few days earlier announced Artemis II and III delays, would that impact ESA, and if yes, how?
Circumstances behind Artemis new delays
The new target for Artemis II, the first crewed Artemis mission around the Moon, is September 2025. Artemis III, which is planned to land the first astronauts near the lunar South Pole, is now scheduled for September 2026. Artemis IV, the first mission to the Gateway lunar space station, is deemed as remaining on track for 2028. As for launching the first integrated elements of the Gateway, NASA is further reviewing the schedule, to align it with the 2028 Artemis IV mission in more optimal ways, allowing for additional development time. When asked about the consequences of such delays, the ESA leadership answered that would not affect their hardware delivery program. ESA has already delivered the service module for Artemis II and is on track to ship the Artemis III hardware mid-year. While this is true and accurate, there is more to the story in terms of economic implications of European lunar activities via Artemis.
Implications for the European contribution to Artemis
ESA chipped in for Artemis through the European Service Module (ESM), that costs Europe €1.49 billion. The ESM is a key element of the Orion spacecraft, including propulsion, power, thermal control, and consumables. Without it, Orion wouldn’t fly to the Moon and NASA’s Artemis wouldn’t fly politically. That deal stems from a 2012 ESA agreement replacing the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), that was used to refund NASA for Europe’s share of the cost of operating the ISS. But that’s not all: on top of the ESM, Europe, via a consortium led by Airbus and including Thales Alenia Aerospace, contributes to the Gateway space station, with contracts totaling €623.5 million for the International Habitat (I-HAB Module) and the European System Providing Refueling Infrastructure and Telecommunication (ESPRIT module). There is a quid pro quo: ESA reportedly obtained to place two European astronauts on the Artemis missions 4 and 5, when the I-HAB and ESPRIT modules will be delivered to the Gateway. There is a still unconfirmed option for a third European astronaut to be potentially involved in lunar surface activities.
International partners for Artemis critical hardware aren’t just ESA. JAXA of Japan contributes environment and life-support systems to the I-HAB. And under a new implementing arrangement expanding their human spaceflight collaboration with NASA through Gateway, the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre (MBRSC) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) will provide Gateway’s Crew and Science Airlock module, as well as a UAE astronaut to fly to the lunar space station on a future Artemis mission. Therefore any further delays with the Artemis affect all the foreign partners as well.
Third: the latest NASA report on Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP)
On the same day, NASA published its latest assessment of Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP). The detail report is available here. The deal with SBSP is simple: more energy security, less greenhouse gases emissions, and mitigate the impending catastrophe of not meeting Net Zero on target and on time. Launching the architecture to deploy orbital SBSP would scale up a nascent space economy: launch market, opportunities linked to autonomous assembly and the entire stack enabling SBSP. To manufacture propellants and critical materials out of elements extracted from the Moon (known as ISRU – In-Situ Resources Utilization) would decrease costs, sustaining an integrated and secured energy market Earth-orbit-Moon, beneficial to energy hungry people everywhere.
While the conclusion and methodology of the NASA report sound solid, it is also repleted with assumptions which overload the contemplated SBSP architecture with unnecessary costly features. The impression is that the average politician would be easily made to conclude that SBSP is too complicated, too expensive, and cannot be done. There is also the argument that atmospheric emissions of greenhouse and toxic gases would nullify the ecological benefits of SBSP. The push and pull between the rapid launchers market expansion and climate change mitigation efforts is certainly a complex and contentious relationship, that requires a level-headed approach.
The first generation of SBSP infrastructure (2040?) will be built exclusively with elements from Earth. But eventually this is bound to change: the cost of transportation in space remains the essential parameter, together with the cost of manufacturing things in orbit and in cislunar and lunar space. It can be reduced. The point of Moon-manufacturing is to move propellant and components more easily to wherever these are needed between cislunar space and orbit, to later move people and cargo in between orbit and the Moon. A one-way ticket for a Starship to the Moon including the filling up of propellant depots would involve less than 10 flights, but more like over 20 flights if it’s a 2-way voyage. Finally, the dependency on chemical propulsion is bound to evolve by introducing electric propulsion (EP) for some legs of the orbital transfers and Moon voyages, further reducing costs.
Recent ESA Solaris studies have clearly established the techno-economic connection between Artemis-driven Moon ISRU and a viable SBSP-driven space economy leveraging the Earth energy markets and the urgency to decarbonize. While current consequences of Artemis accumulated delays appear manageable for NASA’s foreign partners, starting with ESA, that doesn’t mean they should be encouraged, leading to open-ended postponement of Artemis. Furthermore, NASA to give up on SBSP because it requires too many rockets sends the message that the nation is not taking SBPS seriously (on the contrary of Japan, China, India, the UAE, the UK, and Europe) Both issues are linked, we need Artemis, and we need American leadership in SBSP. A good start is here, a conversation involving Laura Winter, Ed Tate, Peter Garretson, and John Mankins.
Christophe Bosquillon. Credit of the author themselves.
Christophe Bosquillonhas a diverse professional background, having operated globally with a focus on the Indo-Pacific region. His experiences in Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan, China, ASEAN, India, Russia, and Australia have given him a deep understanding of the multipolar realpolitik of our world under the Pax Americana. With a background in engineering, trade, and foreign direct investment in industries relevant to Space Resource Utilization (SRU), such as mining, transportation, energy, manufacturing, agrifood, environment, and digitalization, Chris is committed to developing SRU value chains that benefit the Earth. As an executive, owner, writer, and founder of Autonomous Space Futures Ltd, Chris has extensive experience in collaborative policy crafting and works to develop space business and governance models relevant to society. He is a member of NGOs that provide input to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) legal subcommittee Working Group on Space Resources. Chris contributes to regulatory clarity on appropriation, priority, sustainability, and sharing in a way that balances national interests with civil society inclusion, provided a transparent due process is followed. When advocating for access to technology and space for the Global South, Chris believes that emerging space powers’ participation in space markets must be commensurate with their interest and involvement in international space politics. He believes that their ability to develop sovereign domestic capabilities with spillover potential is also essential. Chris is keen on ‘Peace Through Strength’ diplomacy and deterrence-based security as enablers of secure space access. He supports sovereign cislunar space situational awareness as mandatory for freedom of circulation in the space domain and deconflicted cooperation on the Moon
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The body of Ugandan Olympic athlete Rebecca Cheptegei — who died after being set on fire by her partner in Kenya — was received Friday by family and anti-femicide crusaders, ahead of her burial a day later.
Cheptegei’s family met with dozens of activists Friday who had marched to the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital’s morgue in the western city of Eldoret while chanting anti-femicide slogans.
She is the fourth female athlete to have been killed by her partner in Kenya in yet another case of gender-based violence in recent years.
Viola Cheptoo, the founder of Tirop Angels – an organization that was formed in honor of athlete Agnes Tirop, who was stabbed to death in 2021, said stakeholders need to ensure this is the last death of an athlete due to gender-based violence.
“We are here to say that enough is enough, we are tired of burying our sisters due to GBV,” she said.
It was a somber mood at the morgue as athletes and family members viewed Cheptegei’s body which sustained 80% of burns after she was doused with gasoline by her partner Dickson Ndiema. Ndiema sustained 30% burns on his body and later succumbed.
Ndiema and Cheptegei were said to have quarreled over a piece of land that the athlete bought in Kenya, according to a report filed by the local chief.
Cheptegei competed in the women’s marathon at the Paris Olympics less than a month before the attack. She finished in 44th place.
Cheptegei’s father, Joseph, said that the body will make a brief stop at their home in the Endebess area before proceeding to Bukwo in eastern Uganda for a night vigil and burial on Saturday.
“We are in the final part of giving my daughter the last respect,” a visibly distraught Joseph said.
He told reporters last week that Ndiema was stalking and threatening Cheptegei and the family had informed police.
Four in 10 women or an estimated 41% of dating or married Kenyan women have experienced physical or sexual violence perpetrated by their current or most recent partner, according to the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022.
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — A rare Bronze-Era jar accidentally smashed by a 4-year-old visiting a museum was back on display Wednesday after restoration experts were able to carefully piece the artifact back together.
Last month, a family from northern Israel was visiting the museum when their youngest son tipped over the jar, which smashed into pieces.
Alex Geller, the boy’s father, said his son — the youngest of three — is exceptionally curious, and that the moment he heard the crash, “please let that not be my child” was the first thought that raced through his head.
The jar has been on display at the Hecht Museum in Haifa for 35 years. It was one of the only containers of its size and from that period still complete when it was discovered.
The Bronze Age jar is one of many artifacts exhibited out in the open, part of the Hecht Museum’s vision of letting visitors explore history without glass barriers, said Inbal Rivlin, the director of the museum, which is associated with Haifa University in northern Israel.
It was likely used to hold wine or oil, and dates back to between 2200 and 1500 B.C.
Rivlin and the museum decided to turn the moment, which captured international attention, into a teaching moment, inviting the Geller family back for a special visit and hands-on activity to illustrate the restoration process.
Rivlin added that the incident provided a welcome distraction from the ongoing war in Gaza. “Well, he’s just a kid. So I think that somehow it touches the heart of the people in Israel and around the world,“ said Rivlin.
Roee Shafir, a restoration expert at the museum, said the repairs would be fairly simple, as the pieces were from a single, complete jar. Archaeologists often face the more daunting task of sifting through piles of shards from multiple objects and trying to piece them together.
Experts used 3D technology, hi-resolution videos, and special glue to painstakingly reconstruct the large jar.
Less than two weeks after it broke, the jar went back on display at the museum. The gluing process left small hairline cracks, and a few pieces are missing, but the jar’s impressive size remains.
The only noticeable difference in the exhibit was a new sign reading “please don’t touch.”
VICTORIA – The British Columbia government is partnering with a bear welfare group to reduce the number of bears being euthanized in the province.
Nicholas Scapillati, executive director of Grizzly Bear Foundation, said Monday that it comes after months-long discussions with the province on how to protect bears, with the goal to give the animals a “better and second chance at life in the wild.”
Scapillati said what’s exciting about the project is that the government is open to working with outside experts and the public.
“So, they’ll be working through Indigenous knowledge and scientific understanding, bringing in the latest techniques and training expertise from leading experts,” he said in an interview.
B.C. government data show conservation officers destroyed 603 black bears and 23 grizzly bears in 2023, while 154 black bears were killed by officers in the first six months of this year.
Scapillati said the group will publish a report with recommendations by next spring, while an independent oversight committee will be set up to review all bear encounters with conservation officers to provide advice to the government.
Environment Minister George Heyman said in a statement that they are looking for new ways to ensure conservation officers “have the trust of the communities they serve,” and the panel will make recommendations to enhance officer training and improve policies.
Lesley Fox, with the wildlife protection group The Fur-Bearers, said they’ve been calling for such a committee for decades.
“This move demonstrates the government is listening,” said Fox. “I suspect, because of the impending election, their listening skills are potentially a little sharper than they normally are.”
Fox said the partnership came from “a place of long frustration” as provincial conservation officers kill more than 500 black bears every year on average, and the public is “no longer tolerating this kind of approach.”
“I think that the conservation officer service and the B.C. government are aware they need to change, and certainly the public has been asking for it,” said Fox.
Fox said there’s a lot of optimism about the new partnership, but, as with any government, there will likely be a lot of red tape to get through.
“I think speed is going to be important, whether or not the committee has the ability to make change and make change relatively quickly without having to study an issue to death, ” said Fox.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 9, 2024.
