[X] My Assistant

[ustrax]

I see loads of international co-operation within ESA...

Things are getting into place...

“Space cooperation is an important element in overall Europe-Russia cooperation. This meeting has proved very useful as concrete work plans have been established”.
“The cooperation between Europe and Russia in the area of launchers should serve as a model for cooperation in other areas such as exploration, space science and space applications. If the two sides pool their resources, the result will be even more outstanding than it is today”.
Mr Dordain, Director General of ESA

[Mariner9]

the way the ISS and JSF have gone, and the impression that NASA just wants people's money but not real partners (i.e. wants total control with a few subcontractors), I don't know if co-operation will work anymore.

I knew we were in for trouble 20 years ago. At that time I think the Japanese were not yet partners on ISS (could be wrong) but the Europeans were definately signed up with the Columbus module.

After ESA joins up NASA and Congress made it clear that in the "International" Space Station project, the US must take the lead in all areas, and would build the first laboratory module (later named Destiny).

So here we are asking ESA to pony up with money and hardware, and be "partners", but the US would build something that duplicated their efforts and if possible eclipse them. Slam. ESA becomes a very junior partner (at best) right at the start.

I've read in several places about the decision ESA made to not go with Kliper (the Russian space plane design) and instead went for studies on ACTS (basically a Next-Generation Soyuz). Most speculation centers on that on Kliper ESA could find themselves ending up primarily acting as a funding resource, but on ACTS they would be responsible for major hardware portions of the vehicle. So they would be a major partner on the project, and most of the money they spent on ACTS would be spent on home based industries.

Sorry for the diversion into Manned Space territory.... I was just trying to make a point about political motives involved in any kind of partnerships across the borders.

[ngunn]

I read Don Merritt's post with great concern. Whilst there is much to be gained from global coopertation without NASA there would be so much more payoff if the cooperation included the leading player. There may be benefits in attempting difficult tasks in a number of independent ways, and for that reason I follow the gathering momentum in Europe and elsewhere with avid interest, but I am glad that there is clearly complete cooperation - and mixing - among the scientists on both sides of the pond. The separation, if it is real, seems to be confined to project management issues.
By involving internationally binding commitments, European-style 'red tape' can actually deliver consistency of purpose and trust between partners. If there is a reason why NASA cannot join in with this I hope the problem is overcome soon. Meanwhile I salute the marvellous joint projects already in place - Hubble - SOHO - Cassini-Huygens . . .