CurtisLeow t1_jdiom6t wrote
> At the briefing, O said that how ESA spent the money was more important that getting more funding, citing the development of launch services by SpaceX that, with support from NASA through commercial partnerships, eroded Europe’s once-dominant position in the global launch market.
> “There is not a revolution in the amount of money that is spent. The big game-changer is the emergence of the NewSpace sector,” he said. “If we go on with the same procurement policies, if we go on with the same constraints that we have today, if we go on with monopolies, if we go with hampering the emergence of NewSpace actors, we won’t make it no matter what the budget is.”
> He reiterated that point later in the briefing. “The overall efficiency of the euros that are spent today is very poor,” he said.
Cedric O is very critical of geo-return, arguing that it is wasteful, and undermines competition. Under geo-return spending choices are motivated more by politics, not by funding competitive companies and competitive designs. With geo-return ESA can't implement a competitive fixed price competition like CRS or Commercial Crew. O argues ESA needs structural reform, not more funds.
> At the briefing, though, he (The ESA Director General) said he was not considering doing away with geo-return altogether, arguing it was key to the increased funding ESA won at its latest ministerial meeting, called CM22, last November. “Geo-return is not a poison,” he said. “It’s serving us extremely well. We wouldn’t have gotten 17 billion at CM22 without geo-return.”
So the ESA Director General has made clear he isn't interested in reforming geo-return. That means any potential human spaceflight program is going to award the contracts based on politics, not based on the merits of the design or the company. This reaction from the Director General reminds me of empire building. He isn't interested in reform, he's interested in raising more funds from European countries, to increase the size of his empire.
Reddit-runner t1_jdismkb wrote
As a European aerospace engineer I hate this so much.
Thanks for sharing.
robotical712 t1_jdjcmn1 wrote
ESA's problem is that, while it has 22 member nations, two of them provide more than half its funding and its primary contractor is majority owned by one of the two. It doesn't really matter what the Director General thinks of geo-return, he's ultimately beholden to ESA's member nations, and they're happy with it.
sryforcomment t1_jdja2og wrote
> So the ESA Director General has made clear he isn't interested in reforming geo-return.
A recent article on the geo-return policy written by ESA's DG sounds a lot more nuanced and promising, though:
> To enhance compatibility between geo-return and competition, the policy of geo-return should increasingly shift towards a ‘fair contribution’ principle, that is to adjust the contribution of each Member State according to the outcome of the industrial competitions and to the actual share gained by its industry in these competitions. Several ESA programmes, especially in close-to-market sectors such as telecommunications, are already built in this manner.
Source: Josef Aschbacher - "The competitiveness of ESA’s Geo-return policy", 20 Mar 2023.
VicenteOlisipo t1_jdjj906 wrote
He's got a strong point though. Geo-return makes countries put funding forward. Without it, they won't (as much).
sithelephant t1_jdkdx2t wrote
To an extent. If, for example, the funding drops to a half, and you get three times more efficient, ...
VicenteOlisipo t1_jdkkm99 wrote
Ok, but that's theoretical math. In reality that effeciency actually needs even more money to be developed. Unless we just outsource it to the Americans.
sithelephant t1_jdl2dkh wrote
Yes, but also no.
There is technological or process advancement savings for which this argumemnt might be made.
And then there is savings from not doing things in a knowingly financially inefficient but politically expedient manner.
VicenteOlisipo t1_jdjlmnt wrote
Also, lol at the idea that private space companies didn't use massive subsidies from NASA and the Pentagon to get started.
CurtisLeow t1_jdjme0n wrote
They did, but most of those subsidies have gone to ULA, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. They didn’t go to the market leader, which is SpaceX. That was Cedric O’s point, that the money needs to be spent more efficiently.
VicenteOlisipo t1_jdjmrro wrote
Hm, yes they (also) did. Both directly and through subsidising or buying services from its clients. Some of which run by the same guy.
sithelephant t1_jdkdt6g wrote
Buying a service from someone cheaper that you can source that service elsewhere is not actually a subsidy.
VicenteOlisipo t1_jdkl1ms wrote
Play whatever semantic games you want, loads of federal money went into developing the private tech instead of going to NASA or other federal tech funding. I'm not saying it was a bad bet, I'm saying is we can't just achieve the same results but adopting similar looking policies except without the money.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments