Does Europe Have an Off-Ramp from Gateway?

Credit: NASA/Alberto Bertolin

With Donald Trump’s re-election and Elon Musk heading the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, uncertainty reigns as news cycles scramble to keep pace with rapid cuts, policy shifts, and executive orders. While Trump has yet to announce his stance on the agency’s Artemis programme, Musk, who has been granted wide-ranging authority by the new administration, has dismissed the current architecture as “a jobs-maximizing program,” declaring that “something entirely new is needed.” Musk has even gone so far as to call the Moon “a distraction,” advocating instead for an accelerated push toward Mars. The mercurial billionaire has, however, also advocated for a “permanently occupied lunar base,” and stated that the “Moon Station that Starship will enable will be great.” That said, his supportive comments were made in the first half of 2024, while his more dismissive remarks have come within the past two months.

The real-world impact of Musk’s Twitter outbursts, given his current influence, has already raised concerns among companies involved in the Artemis architecture. Speaking at a SpaceCom conference panel on 29 January, Kirk Shireman, Orion Programme Manager at Lockheed Martin, stressed the need to convince the new administration and anyone who would listen that “the fastest way to get humans back on the Moon is to stay the course.”

Under previous administrations, the US could be counted on to fulfil its commitments to international partners, like those made to Europe for its contributions to the lunar Gateway space station. However, under Trump, even the country’s most well-established partnerships have been treated as disposable.

If Musk and Trump decide that Gateway is another line in an expense report to be excised, what would become of Europe’s contributions to the space station? One option would be to just scrap the programme completely. Another would be to utilise ESA’s contributions for something a little closer to home, like an independent space station in low Earth orbit.

Paying for a European Space Station

As of today, the development of the I-Hab and ESPRIT modules is fully funded, with a total of €787.5 million in contracts awarded, which includes a €164 million contract amendment to increase the size of the Lunar View element of the ESPRIT module. Ideally, that €164 million would be diverted to adjust the design of both modules to better fit their new home in low Earth orbit. However, by the time a decision to cancel is made, the design of Lunar View would likely have passed a point of no return. As a result, let’s approximate a €300 million cost to complete the adaptation and to integrate the required functionality from the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) into I-Hab. ESA would then need to fill the gap left by NASA no longer supplying the station’s Power and Propulsion Element (PPE).

In May 2019, NASA awarded Maxar a $375 million (€361.17 million) firm-fixed-price contract to build the PPE. While the PPE offers capabilities that are likely not necessary for a station in low Earth orbit, let’s nonetheless take the full amount as an estimation of what it would cost to build a European alternative to the PPE.

With ESPRIT, a retooled I-Hab, and a new PPE module, the station would have power, logistics, habitation, and some space for science, all the necessary building blocks for a bare-bones space station in low Earth orbit.

The total additional funding needed to build out this basic configuration of the station would, as a result, be in the range of €660 million, which is likely a conservative approximation. Then there are the launch costs and the annual funding needed for station upkeep, including crew and cargo flights. According to a November 2021 NASA Office of the Inspector General report, the ISS costs about $3 billion a year to operate. Even if we assume that the smaller station would cost one-tenth of the ISS, which is likely an overly generous estimation, that’s still €300 million a year.

In 2025, ESA allocated €598.9 million to its Human and Robotic Exploration domain, down from €873.8 million in 2024 and nearly €400 million below the all-time high in 2023. In fact, the 2025 allocation marked the lowest level since Human Spaceflight and Robotic Exploration were combined to form a single domain in 2017. The split between human and robotic exploration also means that funding for human spaceflight in 2025 is likely roughly half of the €598.9 million allocated. For reference, in 2016, the last year human spaceflight was treated as its own domain, ESA allocated €365 million, a decrease from €512.4 million in 2014. Funding the development of an independent station would, as a result, require a sharp annual increase over the next five years to complete construction, followed by a substantial ongoing allocation just to keep it running.

The bottom line is that it’s unlikely that ESA would be able to afford to independently build and operate its own space station in low Earth orbit. However, the agency has already committed to utilizing several future commercial space stations, which is an option. There is, however, also the option to call on international partners.

In late 2024, ESA signed an agreement with India to support its human spaceflight programme. Around the same time, the agency also formalized an agreement with Japan’s space agency, JAXA, aimed at strengthening their existing ties. Meanwhile, Canada and ESA have been collaborating in various capacities since the 1970s.

Both Canada and JAXA are already actively involved with ESA in the development of the I-Hab module. Canada is also contributing the Canadarm3 to the Gateway project, which could be leveraged to enhance the capabilities of a new space station in low Earth orbit. India’s crewed space initiative could provide initial astronaut transport services, while ESA’s LEO Cargo Return Service initiative would serve as the foundation for the station’s cargo transport needs. This initiative is also expected to evolve into a crew transport programme, augmenting India’s capabilities and offering additional redundancy. With this four-member alliance, operating costs could be distributed, making the annual financial commitment significantly more affordable.

Would an Adaptation to Low Earth Orbit Be Possible?

While trying to answer this question, I posed the possibility of an off-ramp for the Gateway modules to Thales Alenia Space, who have been contracted to build the I-Hab and ESPRIT modules and one of two capsules for the ESA LEO Cargo Return Service initiative. I received a surprisingly aggressive response. I was first asked, rather pointedly, why I was writing an article about the implications of Gateway being scrapped. After explaining what I thought was fairly obvious context, I was told the company was “not comfortable with this kind of [anticipative] article that could have a negative impact on business in Europe.” The spokesperson added, “as our two shareholders are listed on the stock exchange, we do not wish Thales Alenia Space to be named in this article.” It’s unclear why a professional spokesperson would think they have any say on whether or not the name of the company they represent does or doesn’t appear in an article. That said, Thales Alenia Space declined to provide any insight into contingencies for completed Gateway modules should the programme be scrapped.

ESA was also asked about contingency plans for its contributions in the event of a Gateway cancellation, but I’ve yet to receive a response.

So, yes, I don’t really have an answer to this question. Possibly?

What Europe Would Be Losing

In October 2020, then-ESA Director General Jan Wörner and then-NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine signed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining ESA’s contributions to the Gateway space station and what it would receive in return. According to the agreement, the agency would receive three flight opportunities for European astronauts to travel and work on the Gateway space station.

The first two flight opportunities will be aboard the Artemis 4 and Artemis 5 missions, which would coincide with the delivery of the I-Hab and ESPRIT modules. These missions will not include time on the lunar surface for European astronauts. Speaking at the 15th European Space Conference in early 2023, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher explained that the nature of the third spot is still being negotiated, but that he was pushing for it to be on a mission to the lunar surface. It’s unclear if this negotiation has been finalized yet. For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that as part of the current Artemis programme, we would see the first European set foot on the surface of the Moon.

While redirecting efforts toward a low Earth orbit station with trusted partners like Canada, Japan, and India could offer a viable alternative if Gateway is cancelled, the real question is whether that endeavor would carry the same symbolic weight as seeing a European astronaut set foot on the Moon. Though not as groundbreaking, a split from its reliance on the US could be seen as an equally, if not more, significant achievement—especially given the current political landscape and the US’s increasingly hostile approach toward Europe under the new administration. Additionally, it does feel like ESA is on the brink of putting all the elements together to make a programme like this happen, with its efforts toward developing reusable rockets, cargo return capabilities, and likely soon, crew return capabilities. There may be no better time for Europe to shake off its dependence on the US and forge a bold new path with new partners.