ESA – Terrae Novae: Europe's exploration vision(esa.int)
esa.int
ESA – Terrae Novae: Europe's exploration vision
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/Terrae_Novae_Europe_s_exploration_vision
9 comments
As a space enthusiast and an European citizen, I can't help but agree.
The lunar gateway is the only mission target that I find appealing. The support for LEO economy is nice, but there is no concrete plan for it, our launchers just cost too much right now for it to develop to an acceptable level.
The lunar gateway is the only mission target that I find appealing. The support for LEO economy is nice, but there is no concrete plan for it, our launchers just cost too much right now for it to develop to an acceptable level.
> The lunar gateway is the only mission target that I find appealing.
What about the lunar gateway is appealing to you?
IMO, it's a complete waste of time and money. Even the overt justification is basically that it'll help to politically stabilize Artemis, not that there's some sort of engineering or scientific reason for its existence.
And if Artemis is even marginally successful, there'll be lunar ground facilities that will quickly supplant the importance of the gateway - making it more of an albatross than an asset.
What about the lunar gateway is appealing to you?
IMO, it's a complete waste of time and money. Even the overt justification is basically that it'll help to politically stabilize Artemis, not that there's some sort of engineering or scientific reason for its existence.
And if Artemis is even marginally successful, there'll be lunar ground facilities that will quickly supplant the importance of the gateway - making it more of an albatross than an asset.
Not only wasteful of opportunity cost but also inhumane. There's no window, the space is severely claustrophobic, and worst of all, it's pointless considering Starship will be the lander. Why stop at a gateway instead of simply landing? Congress.
And if mass and diameter are launch constrained [1], why not chose an inflatable tech? Again, congress, because the defense contractors don't like inflatables. If we wanted a true lunar station, it should be large enough to live in long term, not suffer in for pork spending's sake.
There are plenty of vocal, inside critics [2,3].
1. https://www.space.com/lunar-gateway-station-claustrophobic-a...
2. https://spacenews.com/former-astronaut-criticizes-lunar-gate...
3. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administ...
And if mass and diameter are launch constrained [1], why not chose an inflatable tech? Again, congress, because the defense contractors don't like inflatables. If we wanted a true lunar station, it should be large enough to live in long term, not suffer in for pork spending's sake.
There are plenty of vocal, inside critics [2,3].
1. https://www.space.com/lunar-gateway-station-claustrophobic-a...
2. https://spacenews.com/former-astronaut-criticizes-lunar-gate...
3. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administ...
This seems like a pretty dramatic use of the word "inhumane" to me.
Not having a window is very disappointing, I agree, but whether it is inhumane or not probably depends on the duration of the stay.
Not having a window is very disappointing, I agree, but whether it is inhumane or not probably depends on the duration of the stay.
Yup. 8 cubic meters for 3 people, that's 2x2x2. With roughly 1 SLS launch per year (?), nobody is actually going to live there except to check a PR box during a mission, if ever. So really, what is the purpose? I chose the drama not to underscore making astronauts endure those conditions but for the political reasons they are doing it.
If we're going to set up a lunar orbital habitat for actual work and habitation, great for humanity, but chucking a billion dollar can for maybe a week to satisfy a congressional spend is beyond pointless.
If we're going to set up a lunar orbital habitat for actual work and habitation, great for humanity, but chucking a billion dollar can for maybe a week to satisfy a congressional spend is beyond pointless.
[deleted]
Lunar gateway is basically a bone the US threw to its partners so they can pretend to do something that matters. While in effect it being a mostly irrelevant legacy thing with no future.
The only reason it exist it because it allies a bunch of different interest in NASA and its partner, those people who believe electric propulsion for Mars, space station people and the micro-gratify biology mafia.
Everybody know that the Gateway and the SLS/Orion are just political buyoffs for congress, so they can funnel money into an actually innovate and revolutionary solution, Starship.
The goal is to get Starship going and then do an end-run around congress and sell them on more Moon/Mars missions, finally killing all these terrible projects like Orion, SLS and Gateway. Since the development money for those projects will have largely been spent by then, the politically usefulness is mostly gone, so they will let them go in exchange for some bullshit new bullshit contracts.
The only reason it exist it because it allies a bunch of different interest in NASA and its partner, those people who believe electric propulsion for Mars, space station people and the micro-gratify biology mafia.
Everybody know that the Gateway and the SLS/Orion are just political buyoffs for congress, so they can funnel money into an actually innovate and revolutionary solution, Starship.
The goal is to get Starship going and then do an end-run around congress and sell them on more Moon/Mars missions, finally killing all these terrible projects like Orion, SLS and Gateway. Since the development money for those projects will have largely been spent by then, the politically usefulness is mostly gone, so they will let them go in exchange for some bullshit new bullshit contracts.
The microgravity biology community is so small that it's more like a coffee klatch than a mafia.
I should have mentioned, medical more then just biology. They had an outside influence on NASA policy. Partly because they are in alliance with astronauts, as studying astronauts has always been one of the many things done in space and since you can always learn more you always need people in space.
The goal seems to be keeping up more than innovation and inspiring people. It may well be due to the out of control bureaucracy stifling vision in Europe. ESA has done some interesting research in the past (if you're a physics nerd who cares about that kind of stuff), but even that was in cooperation with the Americans in the cases I know of.
It's sad because the EU has a lot of resources and could have a great space program if there were more of a push for it. Also a friendly rivalry between the continents would help speed up progress in general. The EU isn't even trying to be the first to send humans to Mars, while a nation that was completely underdeveloped up till the 80s and relied heavily on technology transfer from Western and Eastern developed countries is now attempting to beat the US to it. Talk about a fighter - vs the old money kid with few ambitions.
It's sad because the EU has a lot of resources and could have a great space program if there were more of a push for it. Also a friendly rivalry between the continents would help speed up progress in general. The EU isn't even trying to be the first to send humans to Mars, while a nation that was completely underdeveloped up till the 80s and relied heavily on technology transfer from Western and Eastern developed countries is now attempting to beat the US to it. Talk about a fighter - vs the old money kid with few ambitions.
> The EU isn't even trying to be the first to send humans to Mars
I know this is an unpopular opinion around here, but I'm very glad they aren't. It's wildly impractical (humans can't survive on Mars without a lot of external help, and unlike the closest things we have to it, Antarctica and the ISS, emergency help would be months away at best), astronomically expensive, and would serve what goal exactly?
I don't want my tax euros wasted on unrealistic vanity projects. Let Musk('s children) run his dystopian colony there first and we'll see how it goes.
I know this is an unpopular opinion around here, but I'm very glad they aren't. It's wildly impractical (humans can't survive on Mars without a lot of external help, and unlike the closest things we have to it, Antarctica and the ISS, emergency help would be months away at best), astronomically expensive, and would serve what goal exactly?
I don't want my tax euros wasted on unrealistic vanity projects. Let Musk('s children) run his dystopian colony there first and we'll see how it goes.
[deleted]
> goal seems to be keeping up more than innovation and inspiring people
Inspiration is sort of like a dim star, isn’t it? If you stare at it head on it vanishes.
Inspiration is sort of like a dim star, isn’t it? If you stare at it head on it vanishes.
Inspiring people by not doing very much and spending massive money on bureaucracy and a large monopoly. I'm sure people of Europe are inspired.
My comment was ambiguously worded, sorry. I meant ESA is keeping up with what others are doing. Inspiring folks and radically innovating space tech doesn't even seem to be on their agenda, although in theory they have the capability.
The gateway is US project and to get there depends on an absurdly expensive delusional dumb rocket that the US is financing. At best Europe will launch a tiny part on it and get a few seas.
But reality is all that SLS/Orion stuff will continually be delayed and eventually canceled.
Setting your hopes on the future on the Gateway project, is a terrible, terrible idea. Gateway was never considered a good idea by most of the people interest in space. Its basically mostly done to give allies of the US something to do, so they can feel good about themselves while SpaceX solves the actual problems.
But reality is all that SLS/Orion stuff will continually be delayed and eventually canceled.
Setting your hopes on the future on the Gateway project, is a terrible, terrible idea. Gateway was never considered a good idea by most of the people interest in space. Its basically mostly done to give allies of the US something to do, so they can feel good about themselves while SpaceX solves the actual problems.
From the tl;dr:
> to enable the first European to explore the Moon’s surface by 2030
Maybe I'm unambitious but I'm pretty excited to see this.
> to enable the first European to explore the Moon’s surface by 2030
Maybe I'm unambitious but I'm pretty excited to see this.
To me that's smoke and mirror.
They'll be paying for a ride on a US mission, flown from US soil on an all-American launch system (no European can even get near its engineering thanks to out of control European immigration policies and ITAR). It's not like Europe could do it on it's own.
Millions of dollar so that bureaucrats can have pictures of an European person on the moon and claim "look, 'we' did it too!". Absolutely no European engineering involved.
Is this the European vision for space?
They'll be paying for a ride on a US mission, flown from US soil on an all-American launch system (no European can even get near its engineering thanks to out of control European immigration policies and ITAR). It's not like Europe could do it on it's own.
Millions of dollar so that bureaucrats can have pictures of an European person on the moon and claim "look, 'we' did it too!". Absolutely no European engineering involved.
Is this the European vision for space?
Does "enabling" even result in anything to see?
Does “enable” mean “send”?
More like "be a part of the thing that got them there". Purposefully avoiding the specifics, as to avoid locking themselves into a specific course of action.
What it means is that they will do a deal with NASA for seats on Starship. In exchange they will fiance some modules that Starship will deliver on Mars.
I'm a huge proponent of space flight and exploration and want to see "everything" space related happen, but are we really at the stage where we should put resources behind making space accessible to those with disabilities, when it's already such a difficult environment for the very fittest humans we can send?
I think the problem isn't with astronauts missing a limb if they're otherwise suitable candidates. They claim the disability isn't a hindrance and the astronaut has to fulfill the same requirements as other astronauts, apart from the physical requirements where they make an an exception for people with limb deficiencies or those who're extremely short.
Ok, but if that works, why not make that part of the regular requirements then? Why discriminate in the first place and then pat themselves on the back for being so progressive as to make exceptions? Calling him a "parastronaut", making big announcements about it and all. Everyone can see this is political, they're sending a token to space.
It's typical for our times, the administrators are almost more concerned with that sort of stuff than the research they're supposed to oversee.
Ok, but if that works, why not make that part of the regular requirements then? Why discriminate in the first place and then pat themselves on the back for being so progressive as to make exceptions? Calling him a "parastronaut", making big announcements about it and all. Everyone can see this is political, they're sending a token to space.
It's typical for our times, the administrators are almost more concerned with that sort of stuff than the research they're supposed to oversee.
John McFall, the person chosen for the parastronaut study, probably is one of the very fittest humans we can send. Participated in paralympics and all that. He probably runs faster than many of the other astronauts that made the selection.
Additionally, when in weightlessness, a missing leg is not that much of a hindrance.
Additionally, when in weightlessness, a missing leg is not that much of a hindrance.
Cool. But what's the point of this study? What are we learning from it that one couldn't tell you already?
I'm not involved with the study, just a bit of space nerd, so this is just an outsider making a guess. But I see 2 aspects to it.
The first is a whole bunch of practical questions. Do they need to modify the spacesuit to account for the prosthetic? Is it better to create a new prosthetic to fit the suit and/or the station? Does the missing leg cause issues with the exercise equipment on station? What other practical limitations are there?
Secondly, it's simply a way of seeing how it goes. We don't expect any big obstacles, but you can never know for sure until you've tried it. Once it's been done, and we know the obstacles, it can become just a normal thing to do.
The first is a whole bunch of practical questions. Do they need to modify the spacesuit to account for the prosthetic? Is it better to create a new prosthetic to fit the suit and/or the station? Does the missing leg cause issues with the exercise equipment on station? What other practical limitations are there?
Secondly, it's simply a way of seeing how it goes. We don't expect any big obstacles, but you can never know for sure until you've tried it. Once it's been done, and we know the obstacles, it can become just a normal thing to do.
Disability can be temporary and can happen to those very fittest humans.
Also disability in a different environment may be far less of an issue.
For example, in microgravity a person missing one or both legs would not have issues with mobility.
For example, in microgravity a person missing one or both legs would not have issues with mobility.
Been wondering for a while now why the ISS EVA suits have flexible legs. Or indeed why they're not mostly-rigid oversized boxes with only the arm parts being flexible, such that astronauts can pull their arms inside in the event of e.g. a loose eyelash.
As I'm guessing, is this because after Apollo the next mission was designed around the Apollo suits, and then the next suits designed and that mission, etc?
As I'm guessing, is this because after Apollo the next mission was designed around the Apollo suits, and then the next suits designed and that mission, etc?
You're right, of course, but I think the objective counter for now is that space missions are still a bit too much on the "piloting experimental craft" side. While in a different environment, a disability could be less of an issue, or even an advantage, current missions still plan for contingencies in multiple environments (of which we have at least three - on the ground, in microgravity / free-fall, under high thrust). If there was an advantage to disability across all possible environments, it wouldn't be called a disability in the first place.
Ultimately it all boils down to cost. There's a lot of things that could be designed around (I imagine missing one or both legs would be one of the easier cases) - but that is costly, and if it increases variety by e.g. introducing new kinds of equipment or training protocols, that increases risks of failure (both hardware or human error), again increasing costs. Etc.
These things will get easier and cheaper once we ramp up the amount of space missions - the vicious cycle I'm hinting at can eventually turn into a virtuous one.
Ultimately it all boils down to cost. There's a lot of things that could be designed around (I imagine missing one or both legs would be one of the easier cases) - but that is costly, and if it increases variety by e.g. introducing new kinds of equipment or training protocols, that increases risks of failure (both hardware or human error), again increasing costs. Etc.
These things will get easier and cheaper once we ramp up the amount of space missions - the vicious cycle I'm hinting at can eventually turn into a virtuous one.
That's an interesting thought. They'd also be lighter and would require less space, so you could build smaller space crafts, making them lighter as well. Is there something making it difficult to send up amputees or why aren't we doing that already?
You'd have issues with stability though. Looking at some images of astronauts inside the ISS I can see that almost all of the pictures where they're performing a task inside the station, they tuck their feet under holding bars to keep from drifting away from what they're doing.
I imagine that would be quite complicated if you didn't have any legs, and it would probably be hard to keep from swaying side-to-side of you only have one leg.
I'm sure there are other complications too, microgravity is a much more hostile environment than you might think!
I imagine that would be quite complicated if you didn't have any legs, and it would probably be hard to keep from swaying side-to-side of you only have one leg.
I'm sure there are other complications too, microgravity is a much more hostile environment than you might think!
Wasn't there an advantage for color blind people in air rescue because of different perceptions of color enabled them to better see what most other humans would miss?
To concur, there was a fascinating TED talk[0] from Chris Hadfield about having to complete an extra-vehicular operation having gone blind in both eyes, as an unexpected consequence of the anti-fog mixture that was in use.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo62S0ulqhA
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo62S0ulqhA
Why limit this with space exploration? Maybe it's best if we cut off all kind of resources for the less-able people so we can concentrate our limited resources to people who can have larger impact per resource spent.
Do you see the problem here?
Do you see the problem here?
However, we do already make this distinction in other areas where people work in austere environments, such as militaries, emergencies services, maritime and flight crews, resource exploration and exploitation, etc.
AFAIK we do. I personally know a morbidly obese neckbeard who works in the military. Totally not a solder material but very good in computer networking, therefore the military accommodates him.
Right, and there's many overweight, unfit drivers in transport corps around the world, but they aren't in the Seal Teams. There are lots of areas where we discriminate based on physical ability, including physical disabilities.
While I don't think a physical disability is necessarily a blocker for astronauts, it wouldn't be unprecedented.
While I don't think a physical disability is necessarily a blocker for astronauts, it wouldn't be unprecedented.
Why do you think that ESA wants to send people unfit for a mission? The accommodations for the disabled is usually about enabling them do whatever they are best at.
So it works like this: A fitness salon should have elevator for the disabled not because they will hire a disabled yoga instructor but because they can hire an accountant on wheelchairs.
So it works like this: A fitness salon should have elevator for the disabled not because they will hire a disabled yoga instructor but because they can hire an accountant on wheelchairs.
and I'm sure there are many of such build working in the space industry.. on the ground, where they can be most useful right now
How do you know that hey are useful only on the ground? It's not like people with disabilities are different species, maybe you want to have a physicist who specialised in something onboard and they had a car crash and lost an arm?
I bet that if we can name a few situations where a specific physical or psychological trait is advantageous, it'll be exploited. Maybe that's why so many on the autistic spectrum wind up in software engineering. Or why so many psychopaths end up as C-level execs.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Few of my thoughts:
1. That poster for the benefits of space exploration is quite awful. Side-ways text?
2. It's a shame, because some of the artwork is really nice, especially the one at the bottom.
3. The "what they are doing this decade" section is terribly structured and phrased. The first point is to inspire the next generation of engineers etc. The second point is somewhat DEI agenda (concept of "parastronaut") [0]. The third is...yet again about the next generation of engineers etc. The forth is a vague "we will prepare" statement.
The actually awesome content is buried 5-6 points down, for example regarding the construction of Lunar Gateway modules, the design of Argonaut (worst spacecraft name ever?), etc.
4. Super pumped for Rosalind Franklin
[0] Although I don't view this as inherently bad (since we will eventually need to learn about how disabilities affect space exploration), I just think that there are much more important activities that need to be done right now, all on an already shoe-string budget in a recessive economy. I mean, jeez, they even admitted that it's just a PR stunt..."Demonstrate our commitment".
1. That poster for the benefits of space exploration is quite awful. Side-ways text?
2. It's a shame, because some of the artwork is really nice, especially the one at the bottom.
3. The "what they are doing this decade" section is terribly structured and phrased. The first point is to inspire the next generation of engineers etc. The second point is somewhat DEI agenda (concept of "parastronaut") [0]. The third is...yet again about the next generation of engineers etc. The forth is a vague "we will prepare" statement.
The actually awesome content is buried 5-6 points down, for example regarding the construction of Lunar Gateway modules, the design of Argonaut (worst spacecraft name ever?), etc.
4. Super pumped for Rosalind Franklin
[0] Although I don't view this as inherently bad (since we will eventually need to learn about how disabilities affect space exploration), I just think that there are much more important activities that need to be done right now, all on an already shoe-string budget in a recessive economy. I mean, jeez, they even admitted that it's just a PR stunt..."Demonstrate our commitment".
I was wondering why they are researching cholesterol reduction in space. Turns out it was an unexpected benefit from extraterrestrial agriculture.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Ex...
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Ex...
Not a great road map. A nice little science organization hampered by being chained to an delusional monopoly in Arianespace and politicians with no real interest in space beyond propping up its local space industry.
Some of the goals are flat out contradictory.
So in summation here is the strategy:
- Do everything ourselves
- Maybe be a minor partner but still be able to do everything ourselves
- Be a minor partner in all human space flight activities for the next 40 years
- Be a leader of partners.
Now I provide the non marketing translation for those that don't know enough about European space politics:
- HELP! we are forced to pay Arianespace unlimited amount of money so they can maybe figure out how Falcon 9 works and not go bust while doing it.
- We don't have funding to anything ourselves so we just go along with NASA on everything and do some research to convince ourselves that we could do it to if we had the money.
- Pretend we are not totally and utterly reliant on NASA and SpaceX by doing small project with UAE
Some of the goals are flat out contradictory.
So in summation here is the strategy:
- Do everything ourselves
- Maybe be a minor partner but still be able to do everything ourselves
- Be a minor partner in all human space flight activities for the next 40 years
- Be a leader of partners.
Now I provide the non marketing translation for those that don't know enough about European space politics:
- HELP! we are forced to pay Arianespace unlimited amount of money so they can maybe figure out how Falcon 9 works and not go bust while doing it.
- We don't have funding to anything ourselves so we just go along with NASA on everything and do some research to convince ourselves that we could do it to if we had the money.
- Pretend we are not totally and utterly reliant on NASA and SpaceX by doing small project with UAE
Offtopic but I've always found ESA's logo incredibly distracting, brain persists to read it as (E)ESA.
>brain persists to read it as (E)ESA
Whats the issue with that?
I think their brand team is aware, as it is explicitly pointed out as wrong to do their logo as (E)SA. See page 10:
https://brand.esa.int/mp-files/esa-brand-manual_logo.pdf/
Whats the issue with that?
I think their brand team is aware, as it is explicitly pointed out as wrong to do their logo as (E)SA. See page 10:
https://brand.esa.int/mp-files/esa-brand-manual_logo.pdf/
I ultimately see space as humanity's ultimate home. Not in the Star Trek or Star Wars sense (because I don't belive FTL communication or travel is possible) but instead as a Dyson Swarm.
A Dyson Swarm is a collection of orbitals. With current technology and materials we could build O'Neil Cylinders that are 2-3 miles wide and 10-20 miles long that could house millions of people if necessary. Cover the whole thing in solar panels and fly enough of them around the Sun to capture the total solar energy output and you have an unbelievable amount of energy at your disposal and an unfathomably large amount of living area.
It's estimated humanity currently uses 10^11 Watts of power. Using all the sunlight that hits Earth would take that to 10^16 Watts. The orbitals of a Dyson Swarm take that to 10^26.
This can be built incrementally and requires no new physics of theoretical materials. It's just a truly massive engineering problem.
The most important problem we have now is reducing the cost of getting payloads into orbit. The Apollo/Shuttle era had costs of around ~$50,000/kg. Factoring in reuse, Falcon 9 may well be under $1,000/kg now. Starship may ultimately take this down to $100/kg. This needs to keep getting cheaper.
But here's my big problem with the stations we're building like the ISS and what the Europeans want to build here: they're all zero-gravity. What we should be doing is working on spin gravity stations to work out the issues and see how humans cope with that long term.
Yes, zero-gravity is useful for experiments but this isn't an either-or situation. You could have a spinning wheel attached to something not spinning for zero-gravity work environments.
A Dyson Swarm is a collection of orbitals. With current technology and materials we could build O'Neil Cylinders that are 2-3 miles wide and 10-20 miles long that could house millions of people if necessary. Cover the whole thing in solar panels and fly enough of them around the Sun to capture the total solar energy output and you have an unbelievable amount of energy at your disposal and an unfathomably large amount of living area.
It's estimated humanity currently uses 10^11 Watts of power. Using all the sunlight that hits Earth would take that to 10^16 Watts. The orbitals of a Dyson Swarm take that to 10^26.
This can be built incrementally and requires no new physics of theoretical materials. It's just a truly massive engineering problem.
The most important problem we have now is reducing the cost of getting payloads into orbit. The Apollo/Shuttle era had costs of around ~$50,000/kg. Factoring in reuse, Falcon 9 may well be under $1,000/kg now. Starship may ultimately take this down to $100/kg. This needs to keep getting cheaper.
But here's my big problem with the stations we're building like the ISS and what the Europeans want to build here: they're all zero-gravity. What we should be doing is working on spin gravity stations to work out the issues and see how humans cope with that long term.
Yes, zero-gravity is useful for experiments but this isn't an either-or situation. You could have a spinning wheel attached to something not spinning for zero-gravity work environments.
The Lunar Gateway isn't really intended for long time habitation, it's more there as a "petrol stations" for moon and Mars missions. It allows for dropping off supplies and astronauts into space, before sending them on their way to the moon and beyond.
> it's more there as a "petrol stations
Which makes very little sense from a delta V standpoint. I’ve yet to see a good justification for the gateway, especially after NASA selected Starship (which contains more useable living space than the proposed gateway) as its lander for Artemis.
Which makes very little sense from a delta V standpoint. I’ve yet to see a good justification for the gateway, especially after NASA selected Starship (which contains more useable living space than the proposed gateway) as its lander for Artemis.
Maybe to send fuel in orbit along several weeks or months instead of with one giant rocket. Less efficient but easier.
> Maybe to send fuel in orbit along several weeks or months instead of with one giant rocket. Less efficient but easier.
Unless you're getting fuel from the moon, the sensible way to do that is to do your refueling in LEO. Otherwise your tankers of fuel are going to need to refuel in LEO to even get to the lunar gateway in the first place.
That's in fact Starship's architecture:
It's going to launch on a SuperHeavy booster, and then refuel in Low Earth Orbit, utilising tanker-variants of Starship.
Unless you're getting fuel from the moon, the sensible way to do that is to do your refueling in LEO. Otherwise your tankers of fuel are going to need to refuel in LEO to even get to the lunar gateway in the first place.
That's in fact Starship's architecture:
It's going to launch on a SuperHeavy booster, and then refuel in Low Earth Orbit, utilising tanker-variants of Starship.
You could do that by directly going to the moon. No matter how you look at it, it makes no sense.
It's more likely that ChatGPT will accomplish this before we do.
No plans for ballooning around Venus in the upper atmosphere? That's disappointing. Also, exploration of Jupiter's moons should be on the agenda.
Project of that scale would be major, major flagship missions. ESA could never do them alone. And missions like that would have to be in the Decadal Survey.
There are some Venus mission planned but non with balloons or anything inside of the atmosphere.
There are some Venus mission planned but non with balloons or anything inside of the atmosphere.
I'm reminded of Holst's complaints about Arianespace [2]. Because Europe is actually planning cool stuff in space, e.g. the lunar gateway described on this page. But its bureaucracy seems unwilling to focus on a small set of ambitious goals versus sort of doing everything everywhere.
[1] https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/HRE/Terrae_Novae_2030+str...
[2] https://illdefinedspace.substack.com/p/arianespace-the-only-...