The European launcher capability is faced with organisational, financial and technical issues and needs to be reorganised to continue operating in an increasingly competitive environment.
These are the main conclusions of the Space Commission, part of…
The European launcher capability is faced with organisational, financial and technical issues and needs to be reorganised to continue operating in an increasingly competitive environment.
These are the main conclusions of the Space Commission, part of the Air and Space Academy based in Toulouse, France. Recently, twelve European former industry officials released a report entitled “Long term strategy for European space launchers,” outlining potential solutions to have a continued independent access to space, at present guaranteed by heavy-lift rocket Ariane 5.
Faced with financial issues, Arianespace announced in October that its board started operations to increase the company’s share capital. Earlier this year, the company had posted a E71.2m technical loss for fiscal 2009/2010, which it said was due to the discharge of provisions for technical and commercial risks. Arianespace also reported full year sales of E1.029bn, an increase on the E955m recorded in 2008, but down on the E1.046bn projected for 2009.
“We’ve been looking ahead, up until 2025, to reconcile the institutional and commercial aspects of the industry,” Philippe Couillard, the Space Commission’s secretary and former chief technical officer at EADS Space, told SatelliteFinance. “With so few institutional launches, other arrangements must be found,” he added.
Reacting to the report, the European Satellite Operators Association (ESOA) also confirmed the necessity for an overhaul of the industry. “ESOA is following the dialogue on the European Launch industry with great interest. Access to Space is of utmost importance to ESOA members with a European source, reliable, and cost efficient, backed by a strong European Industry.
“In ESOA’s view, the European launcher activity must be commercially competitive and financially sound over the long term. In that respect, we understand that some stakeholders involved are working to define a sustainable long term solution. There are several options for the restructuring and improvement of the European launch sector; we have not so far been consulted on these but should we be asked to, ESOA will be happy to contribute to this dialogue,” the association told SatelliteFinance in a statement.
Pushing ahead with Ariane ME
In its report, the Commission first outlined suggestions for technical improvements. These include developing, by 2016, the Ariane 5 Midlife Evolution (ME) version with a high-performance upper stage, and to decide to develop Vega 2, a fully European Vega launcher, in order to be able to launch the whole spectrum of satellites, not just the institutional ones.
The ME programme is aimed at increasing the payload capacity of the launcher from 10 to 12 tonnes and will have a new re-ignitable upper stage to better place multiple satellites into orbit or send probes to other planets. “Ariane 5 ME is already in the pipeline but we want to encourage industry officials to go ahead with it and make it become reality by 2016,” explained Couillard.
The report also suggests building a family of launchers using different modules. Such a step is expected to enable Europe to launch any payload mass into orbit at the most economical conditions.
Taxing operators
Besides technical solutions, the commissioners have put forward recommendations for financial improvements, including taxing satellite operators. Arguing that orbital slots are a precious asset, the commissioners recommend European Union member states to impose a levy on commercial operators for each satellite they operate that uses a geostationary slot awarded to a European state.
The tax would be of around E3m per satellite, which means the proceeds would amount to E100m in total per year. They would be put at the disposal of the European Space Agency (ESA) and be used for the long-term maintenance of the launching capability. “I don’t expect satellite operators to jump for joy about this levy, although it should only have a low impact on their financial situation,” said Couillard. “In addition, the operators will continue to be guaranteed a reliable launcher.”
The report goes on explaining that the existence of a European capability ensures there is a competitive international launch market, putting operators in a strong negotiating position.
Creating an ESA Special Project
The third major recommendation is a reorganisation of the European launcher sector.
Such an overhaul would entail various stages, starting with creating a European Launcher Centre (ECL), by integrating some teams of the Centre National d’Ètudes Spatiales (CNES) into the launcher directorate of ESA. ECL would have full authority for managing development and production and would place direct contracts for the development phase to propulsion prime contractors.
The Commission also advises ESA to set up an ESA Special Project for launcher production, in which all ESA Member States would participate. “In this framework a contract, and not a simple convention, should be awarded to the entities in charge of production and commercialisation. This contract should include strong incentives in order to limit financial risks to governments,” read the report.
Regarding the entities in charge mentioned, the commissioners suggest two options. The first one would be to put the responsibility of delegating production contracts directly under Arianespace’s control. “If this solution was retained it would certainly need a rearrangement of the shareholders and the Board in order to ensure a better representation of the main industrial companies involved in the production and to increase visibility for ESA and its Member States,” explained the report.
The second solution would be to set up a new industrial concept involving transferring the delegation of production orders into to the hands of the prime contractors in charge of the development of Ariane, Vega and future launchers. “The solution presents the advantage to give the responsibility of the normal financial risks to firms having the financial capability to face it.
“It is clear that the acceptance of this responsibility should be clearly confirmed by them before any decision,” the report went on explaining. The second solution is expected to save about ?10m per launcher.
“The system needs to be balanced. A new organisation would definitely help the industry keep its autonomy in terms of production,” concluded Couillard.
