Good that you are doing a deep-dive into this. I too have questions. (Not sure I agree with all your conclusions)
0) While indeed disappointing that there may be no ESA astronauts on the first lander mission, this was to be expected since it was originally intended as ISS payments, not Artemis buy-in.
Threatening to dropping out now or blackmailing NASA seems like a short-term strategy.
After already dropping the Russians for Exomars, and even missing AIM for NASA's DART, can ESA afford to be seen as unreliable to foreign partners? Especially as it now needs NASA help to get Exomars landing, and wants to participate in returning the Mars sample before having proven itself.
(Without significantly more money, ESA can go at it alone. )
1) To what degree is Gateway required for Artemis? I am sure it can add value if it is there, but is it needed? The first lander does not use it. The 'Second Provider' option may, but does it /need/ the extension modules?
2) €2.1 billion sounds like a lot, but is a fraction on the total Artemis budget. The SLS/Orion is already nearing $50 billion on development, with and with another 2 billion per flight. Add in another $10 for the landers program, and the ESA share becomes just 3.5% if all of it was just for seats.
"The €2.1 billion figure includes ESA contributions to the ISS up until 2024"
Do you have a better breakdown of this? I thought all first 3 were just till 2020, but I can only find statements about 1 or 1 and 2.
3) IIRC it were ESA, JAXA and other NASA partners that originally asked for the option to attach modules to Gateway back when it was the LOP-G on the way to Mars.
If it still is, it would make sense for those partners to pay rent to NASA for transport, station keeping etc. Not for NASA to pay to ESA for providing the module.
For the current use, equal sharing in Gateway costs seems reasonable. (But getting our own ESA transport to, and landers from Gateway seems a requirement to give it value)
ESA has already gotten a great deal for their contribution to Artemis. According to the latest GAO report, the US has spent $93 billion for Artemis through 2025, which doesn't even include the costs of any landings. Even ignoring development costs, each launch of SLS and Orion costs over $4 billion. NASA is certainly overspending on the program, mostly due to Boeing lobbying congress, but ESA is putting up less than 2 percent of the costs, and getting way more than 2% of the seats. I am glad they are helping, but they are currently getting more out than they are putting in. Ultimately for Artemis to be sustainable, SLS, Orion, the ESA service module, and even Gateway need to be abandoned in favor of Starship doing the entire mission itself, which it can do for much cheaper.
I'd be shocked if SLS and Orion make it past the first 4 or 5 flights before it's cancelled. At the projected launch cadence, 4 or 5 flights will cover the entire 2020s and into the early 2030s. By then I expect SpaceX will be offering to do lunar surface missions for any paying customer for a fraction of the cost of an Orion / SLS flight. That should be a win-win for Europe. More reasonably priced lunar surface missions and they won't be on the hook to complete all those ESMs. Of course, it would be better if Europe had its own SpaceX competitor.
Deceptive to paint the €2B ESA contribution as deserving guarantee of boots on surface, given that it's way less than what NASA has and will spend on the Artemis missions. It almost seems like you deliberately left out that tiny detail...
The first two were €295 each. The third just 250 and the last 3 just 216. Seems like a good trend.
But the first one included design, tooling and risk. There were some more life support and maybe some more subsystem changes for version 2 (and 3?)
But shouldn't the additional ones be a lot more cheaper?
Especially since there do not seem to be significant upgrades, despite the block 1B offering more capacity.
Second, the original purpose was for ESA benefitting of the ATV knowledge, and developing their own ESM tech for future projects.
How much of this is actually utilized? Is anything dripping back to the EU industry? Can other ESA or other EU companies use the tech, or is it Airbus property?
I remember an internet comment claiming that most of the ATV tooling was already closed down before the contract was signed.
And at one point the ESM was supposed to use the Vinci engine, but it was not remotely ready.
I also am sure someone somewhere once stated that the ESM was limited in size* so it could fit on Ariane 5 (so ESA could sent it up separate), but I am unable to find any evidence for this.
(PS: as explanation for why it was not larger and more capable)
This article from , 2017 claims some upgrades for ESM 2:
"..and develop a new service-module propulsion system.."+
"'There Dettman said Feb. 3 there will be other subsystem changes to the service module for EM-2 and possibly more for the EM-3 mission, which is, “not yet fully defined'."
Good that you are doing a deep-dive into this. I too have questions. (Not sure I agree with all your conclusions)
0) While indeed disappointing that there may be no ESA astronauts on the first lander mission, this was to be expected since it was originally intended as ISS payments, not Artemis buy-in.
Threatening to dropping out now or blackmailing NASA seems like a short-term strategy.
After already dropping the Russians for Exomars, and even missing AIM for NASA's DART, can ESA afford to be seen as unreliable to foreign partners? Especially as it now needs NASA help to get Exomars landing, and wants to participate in returning the Mars sample before having proven itself.
(Without significantly more money, ESA can go at it alone. )
1) To what degree is Gateway required for Artemis? I am sure it can add value if it is there, but is it needed? The first lander does not use it. The 'Second Provider' option may, but does it /need/ the extension modules?
2) €2.1 billion sounds like a lot, but is a fraction on the total Artemis budget. The SLS/Orion is already nearing $50 billion on development, with and with another 2 billion per flight. Add in another $10 for the landers program, and the ESA share becomes just 3.5% if all of it was just for seats.
"The €2.1 billion figure includes ESA contributions to the ISS up until 2024"
Do you have a better breakdown of this? I thought all first 3 were just till 2020, but I can only find statements about 1 or 1 and 2.
3) IIRC it were ESA, JAXA and other NASA partners that originally asked for the option to attach modules to Gateway back when it was the LOP-G on the way to Mars.
If it still is, it would make sense for those partners to pay rent to NASA for transport, station keeping etc. Not for NASA to pay to ESA for providing the module.
For the current use, equal sharing in Gateway costs seems reasonable. (But getting our own ESA transport to, and landers from Gateway seems a requirement to give it value)
ESA has already gotten a great deal for their contribution to Artemis. According to the latest GAO report, the US has spent $93 billion for Artemis through 2025, which doesn't even include the costs of any landings. Even ignoring development costs, each launch of SLS and Orion costs over $4 billion. NASA is certainly overspending on the program, mostly due to Boeing lobbying congress, but ESA is putting up less than 2 percent of the costs, and getting way more than 2% of the seats. I am glad they are helping, but they are currently getting more out than they are putting in. Ultimately for Artemis to be sustainable, SLS, Orion, the ESA service module, and even Gateway need to be abandoned in favor of Starship doing the entire mission itself, which it can do for much cheaper.
I'd be shocked if SLS and Orion make it past the first 4 or 5 flights before it's cancelled. At the projected launch cadence, 4 or 5 flights will cover the entire 2020s and into the early 2030s. By then I expect SpaceX will be offering to do lunar surface missions for any paying customer for a fraction of the cost of an Orion / SLS flight. That should be a win-win for Europe. More reasonably priced lunar surface missions and they won't be on the hook to complete all those ESMs. Of course, it would be better if Europe had its own SpaceX competitor.
Deceptive to paint the €2B ESA contribution as deserving guarantee of boots on surface, given that it's way less than what NASA has and will spend on the Artemis missions. It almost seems like you deliberately left out that tiny detail...
On the other hand there is the Airbus side.
For starters the cost.
The first two were €295 each. The third just 250 and the last 3 just 216. Seems like a good trend.
But the first one included design, tooling and risk. There were some more life support and maybe some more subsystem changes for version 2 (and 3?)
But shouldn't the additional ones be a lot more cheaper?
Especially since there do not seem to be significant upgrades, despite the block 1B offering more capacity.
Second, the original purpose was for ESA benefitting of the ATV knowledge, and developing their own ESM tech for future projects.
How much of this is actually utilized? Is anything dripping back to the EU industry? Can other ESA or other EU companies use the tech, or is it Airbus property?
I remember an internet comment claiming that most of the ATV tooling was already closed down before the contract was signed.
And at one point the ESM was supposed to use the Vinci engine, but it was not remotely ready.
I also am sure someone somewhere once stated that the ESM was limited in size* so it could fit on Ariane 5 (so ESA could sent it up separate), but I am unable to find any evidence for this.
(PS: as explanation for why it was not larger and more capable)
This article from , 2017 claims some upgrades for ESM 2:
"..and develop a new service-module propulsion system.."+
"'There Dettman said Feb. 3 there will be other subsystem changes to the service module for EM-2 and possibly more for the EM-3 mission, which is, “not yet fully defined'."
https://spacenews.com/esa-deal-hinges-on-what-trump-does-with-nasas-human-spaceflight-plans/
Similar for the Gateway modules. While not working out, parts of NASA intended them to be industry tech incentives for developing commercial stations.
Are there any indications that ESA Gateway providers will cross-feed their tech into LEO stations or other tech projects?