A European space station would imply a huge shift in the way Europe approaches human spaceflight. Right now there's just a handful of European astronauts, far fewer than either China or America has. In terms of human spaceflight Europe is more comparable to Japan. Would a Japanese space station make sense? I don't think so.
Space stations are a few steps down the road from deciding to invest in human spaceflight. Europe hasn't, so far at least, made a strong commitment to doing that. Until they do, talk of ESA or the EU funding a station is surely premature.
Most of the long article sounds personal opinion/statement and far from an analysis’ result… Do you see that public trasportation on Earth is without public investment? So why not thinking about project financing schemes for LEO activity (crewed and uncrewed)?
My analysis is based on my own predications but it was also based on objective research and actual financials. And I'm not sure how you're comparing a commercial space station to public transport. A more adapt comparison on Earth would be a high rise office building. The whole point of these stations is for them to be a commercial entity that is capable of providing a service that customers will want to purchase in sufficient quantities as to justify its existence. Public funding can definitely be used to get it off the ground but at some point these stations need to be making sufficient income to operate independently. You can't possibly be arguing the the public should indefinitely pay for these stations to exist with all profits going to the company's that operate them?
It is unequivocable that Space brings benefits to Earth (R&D outcomes, positioning of assets for terrestrial purposes e. g. tle, eo, nav, etc.) and at the same time to access Space is still expensive. This frame allows only few to access Space; thus Public invertention can bring equitable conditions to the table allowing a more democratic path for everyone to access Space. For reaching this (exactly same story of many public utilities on Earth) the State supports with monetary measures the sector within several project financing schemes. This creates competitive market conditions for the last mile where a market demand exists.
That are arguments for why ESA should stay on the ISS, build its own station, and maybe become an anchor tenant in future commercial space stations.
But have little to do with why commercial stations should happen, which is mostly the hope that they will bring down the price and find new niches.
Here, the 'equitable conditions' are somewhere else;
-that any company in the world (that can afford it) can fly up experiments. Regardless of its country being an ISS member, having connections and being put on a waiting list.
- that people working for such companies will be send up to run the experiments rather then just professional astronauts.
(We already see a start of this with Polaris Dawn where 2 of the astronauts will be SpaceX employees)
Ultimately, the prospect of fully and rapidly reusable rockets, such as the USs Starship and China's CZ-9, could drastically alter the economics of space stations.
Until then, the market is likely to be rather limited, so we have another 20 years to go, roughly, before that potential is realized.
As usual, thanks for providing another comprehensive analysis of the state of the industry.
You also seem to be getting quite a bit of user response.
While a bit more disappointing about the state of the industry then I was hoping for, it is good to be aware of reality. You also listed a few potential commercial station purposes that I was unaware off. I will be adding them to my list.
Personally I would not classify countries and companies flying up people to do experiments under 'tourism' but 'space lab services'.
It would be great if we could get a better idea of the demand for space experiments. Both ESA (E3P, ICE Cubes, Bartolomeo and Bioreactor Express) and NASA (CASIS) run commercial experiments. But while they do publish the experiments that are selected to fly up, I am curious if they keep a list of what is turned now. And a valuation of what percentage was turned down due to limited capability, or just under the standard but could be made to fit it.
Regular crew and cargo flights to ISS have been restored, and NASA now has a 'spare' astronaut for science. But I have not seen an increase in cargo runs to fly up more experiments.
As for what you may be 'missing' regarding fueling stations; these stations would need to be in a similar, or they would need to use a lot of it to chance inclination.
Also, most of what you address are human space stations, which does not go as well with fueling stations due to explosion risk, and the toxicity and corrosion of rocket fuels. (Rideshare limits what fuels its satellites can use, and Nanoracks probably has restrictions on what it launches from ISS too.) There are talks and plans about commercial fuel depots, but these will be robotic.
As to the rigidity of the ESA framework, I do like that it also supports Bottom-up programs from its member states along with the top-down programs.
We have seen this a.o. with the small launch program, where ESA offers technical and administrative advice. There may be more flexibility there if one or more countries were to team up and fund their own crew program.
Or if, say Italy, were to partner with Axiom by investing in its own module (build by ThalesAlenia). ESA could offer knowledge from running ISS, offer a list of experiments to run, and count lab time towards Italy's quotum. Or help with bartering.
I do not see what 'exceptional circumstances' there are now regarding manned flight. AFAIK nothing has really changed or happened that was unexpected?
If anything, it has gotten worse? At least then we had a reliable launcher that was top of the commercial market. Now, we have none. Ariane 5 was crew-ratable. I have not seen any statements that Ariane 6 can carry crew. (I think it was implied that it reduced cost by NOT needing or being capable to fly crew. ) ISS was then to expire in 2024, but could be extended. Now its end is certain.
To be clear, I do not see the point of developing any human spaceflight capabilities if we can not even make LEO stations affordable and self-sufficient. Getting people further out into space will only be more complex and more dangerous and reduce the chance on ROI.
A European space station would imply a huge shift in the way Europe approaches human spaceflight. Right now there's just a handful of European astronauts, far fewer than either China or America has. In terms of human spaceflight Europe is more comparable to Japan. Would a Japanese space station make sense? I don't think so.
Space stations are a few steps down the road from deciding to invest in human spaceflight. Europe hasn't, so far at least, made a strong commitment to doing that. Until they do, talk of ESA or the EU funding a station is surely premature.
A very interesting read!
Most of the long article sounds personal opinion/statement and far from an analysis’ result… Do you see that public trasportation on Earth is without public investment? So why not thinking about project financing schemes for LEO activity (crewed and uncrewed)?
My analysis is based on my own predications but it was also based on objective research and actual financials. And I'm not sure how you're comparing a commercial space station to public transport. A more adapt comparison on Earth would be a high rise office building. The whole point of these stations is for them to be a commercial entity that is capable of providing a service that customers will want to purchase in sufficient quantities as to justify its existence. Public funding can definitely be used to get it off the ground but at some point these stations need to be making sufficient income to operate independently. You can't possibly be arguing the the public should indefinitely pay for these stations to exist with all profits going to the company's that operate them?
It is unequivocable that Space brings benefits to Earth (R&D outcomes, positioning of assets for terrestrial purposes e. g. tle, eo, nav, etc.) and at the same time to access Space is still expensive. This frame allows only few to access Space; thus Public invertention can bring equitable conditions to the table allowing a more democratic path for everyone to access Space. For reaching this (exactly same story of many public utilities on Earth) the State supports with monetary measures the sector within several project financing schemes. This creates competitive market conditions for the last mile where a market demand exists.
That are arguments for why ESA should stay on the ISS, build its own station, and maybe become an anchor tenant in future commercial space stations.
But have little to do with why commercial stations should happen, which is mostly the hope that they will bring down the price and find new niches.
Here, the 'equitable conditions' are somewhere else;
-that any company in the world (that can afford it) can fly up experiments. Regardless of its country being an ISS member, having connections and being put on a waiting list.
- that people working for such companies will be send up to run the experiments rather then just professional astronauts.
(We already see a start of this with Polaris Dawn where 2 of the astronauts will be SpaceX employees)
Ultimately, the prospect of fully and rapidly reusable rockets, such as the USs Starship and China's CZ-9, could drastically alter the economics of space stations.
Until then, the market is likely to be rather limited, so we have another 20 years to go, roughly, before that potential is realized.
As usual, thanks for providing another comprehensive analysis of the state of the industry.
You also seem to be getting quite a bit of user response.
While a bit more disappointing about the state of the industry then I was hoping for, it is good to be aware of reality. You also listed a few potential commercial station purposes that I was unaware off. I will be adding them to my list.
Personally I would not classify countries and companies flying up people to do experiments under 'tourism' but 'space lab services'.
It would be great if we could get a better idea of the demand for space experiments. Both ESA (E3P, ICE Cubes, Bartolomeo and Bioreactor Express) and NASA (CASIS) run commercial experiments. But while they do publish the experiments that are selected to fly up, I am curious if they keep a list of what is turned now. And a valuation of what percentage was turned down due to limited capability, or just under the standard but could be made to fit it.
Regular crew and cargo flights to ISS have been restored, and NASA now has a 'spare' astronaut for science. But I have not seen an increase in cargo runs to fly up more experiments.
As for what you may be 'missing' regarding fueling stations; these stations would need to be in a similar, or they would need to use a lot of it to chance inclination.
Also, most of what you address are human space stations, which does not go as well with fueling stations due to explosion risk, and the toxicity and corrosion of rocket fuels. (Rideshare limits what fuels its satellites can use, and Nanoracks probably has restrictions on what it launches from ISS too.) There are talks and plans about commercial fuel depots, but these will be robotic.
As to the rigidity of the ESA framework, I do like that it also supports Bottom-up programs from its member states along with the top-down programs.
We have seen this a.o. with the small launch program, where ESA offers technical and administrative advice. There may be more flexibility there if one or more countries were to team up and fund their own crew program.
Or if, say Italy, were to partner with Axiom by investing in its own module (build by ThalesAlenia). ESA could offer knowledge from running ISS, offer a list of experiments to run, and count lab time towards Italy's quotum. Or help with bartering.
I do not see what 'exceptional circumstances' there are now regarding manned flight. AFAIK nothing has really changed or happened that was unexpected?
If anything, it has gotten worse? At least then we had a reliable launcher that was top of the commercial market. Now, we have none. Ariane 5 was crew-ratable. I have not seen any statements that Ariane 6 can carry crew. (I think it was implied that it reduced cost by NOT needing or being capable to fly crew. ) ISS was then to expire in 2024, but could be extended. Now its end is certain.
To be clear, I do not see the point of developing any human spaceflight capabilities if we can not even make LEO stations affordable and self-sufficient. Getting people further out into space will only be more complex and more dangerous and reduce the chance on ROI.