The European plan to go to the moon

Hi everyone and welcome to B&R Space Cowboys brought to you by YesScience. My name is Thijs Roes and here with resident space geek, Juri. Hi there, Thijs. Hey, Juri. How's it going? Everything's great. Yeah? We're up for a few exciting months, so I'm really looking forward to the end of the year. Why is it exciting? There's a test flight coming up for the Starliner from Boeing. That's an exciting one. SpaceX is going on their launch cadence once again. Starlink's going to be launched. They're also gearing up for an in-flight abort test of their Dragon capsule. All those things. Really looking forward to it. Yeah, and what to look out for with Boeing? What are they testing? You know, the Starliner. Well, they did a test last week. I'm not sure if you saw it. No, I didn't. They did a test of the launch escape system of the Starliner capsule. That's the capsule that's going to bring back American astronauts to the moon. And they did a test, and everything seemed to go fine, up until the moment where the parachutes deployed. And then there were just two parachutes, where there were supposed to be three. Okay, not the biggest problem, because it was able to land safely, and any crew that would have been on board, and that would have been part of the escape, would have survived. But still, there were supposed to be three parachutes, not two. So they're looking into it. I think the first results were published today, why it failed. Something wrong with an attachment between the pilot chute and the main chute. Yeah. That wasn't connected correctly. But still, they're gearing up for the next test, which is the real test of the capsule. They're going to launch it into space, see if it can dock to the ISS, and then do a full-on test of the whole procedure. Very cool. Exciting stuff. Yeah, cool. I look forward to it. Well, today we're here with Philip. Schone Jans. I am not sure how to pronounce that in English. Schone Jans. How do you pronounce your own name in English? You don't. You don't. I think Schone Jans is pretty good, but obviously shows that you're Dutch. Yes. So Space Cowboys is always also a slight course in Dutch. So for those of you listening who do not speak Dutch, it's Schone Jans. Schone Jans. Yes. So, Philip, you are project manager at the European Space Agency, at ESA. And you do a bunch of projects. But today we would love to talk about the whole moon mission and the capsule that you're managing, so to speak, the project for the capsule that you're managing. But first, which projects, which kind of projects have you worked on at ESA before we talk about the moon? Okay. In the very, very beginning, even Hermès Space Shuttle, the French somewhere in the 80s wanted to make a space shuttle to go to space. And there was a very small one which was meant to be launched on top of an Ariane vehicle. And they never got it running. It was too difficult. So it got canceled somewhere after a little bit too much money was already spent. Yeah. Do you know what the main culprit was? What was the problem? It was on top of the rocket. So it was catching a lot of wind. And in order to fix that, they had to make the wings smaller. And with the wings smaller, it was not able to carry as much load back to Earth when it was descending again. And in the end, that was an unsolvable problem. There may have been other reasons too, but that definitely was one technical flaw. I think they should have done better at copying others and hanging it down the bottom as the Russian Buran and the American Space Shuttle were. Did they ever produce hardware or was it just a concept, a paper rocket? Some, a bit of it, but it was, I think, still largely paper, but still with a hell of a lot of engineers working on it. But then ISS was obviously way more successful, which was the next thing that followed. And it's still incredibly successful. And soon we'll be celebrating the 20 year anniversary, I think somewhere next year, so 19 years since the first people went to the ISS. And what did you work on on the ISS? Mainly robotics. So with a robot arm that still should go there, in fact. And that's... You mean it's still functional? No, it is still not launched. Oh, it's still not launched. It's still the one that has to go on the Russian MLM. Yeah, on the Russian MLM. And the arm is ready, but the MLM is not ready. So they have had no end of problems with this Russian module that should host the European robotic arm. I think they had contractual problems, they had technical problems, they had two parties not willing to do anything because whenever you would start to fix it, you would sort of acknowledge that it's your problem. So they were stalling for that reason for a couple of years now. I think the whole thing, the module and the robot arm is going to be moved to the launch base in Kazakhstan somewhere between the 15th and the 20th of January. So it looks like things are finally happening. And what is the arm going to do up there? Because we already have Canadarm and Dexter. Okay, so it needed really this MLM module in order to have a very, very clear purpose or killer application if you want. And that MLM has to be done. The MLM has to go on the Russian part of the ISS and it has a science airlock. So something that can enable you to bring payload from inside to outside without having to do a dangerous and expensive spacewalk with astronauts. So the robot arm is meant to pick up the technical or science equipment out of this airlock and place it somewhere on the outside of the ISS. So that's definitely important. But before it can do all of that, it still first has to place the airlock, mount it onto the MLM. So there's a lot of equipment is already there on ISS since 2010. Oh, what? It's been going around the Earth in circles without the actual arm. And also the spare parts of the arm are already in space since 2010. So we would have preferred to launch the real thing rather than the spare of it, but that's already there. Have you been managing it also since then? Well, I've been working on it since the very beginning, but I think I was the project manager of that since 2004. So it's actually 15 years. Oh, wow. So what you really can notice is that space development takes an incredibly long time. But we're not alone there. It's like all infrastructural big projects take a long time. So if you have like a new railway to whatever would take ages, the new metro here in Amsterdam has taken ages. So it's not that abnormal. But still, I think with this project, it's really out of the ordinary how long it takes. It has been taking. Yeah. And but since then, we have also worked on the docking mechanism. I was for a long time, the project manager of European docking mechanism that can dock spacecraft to each other or spacecraft to a space station. It's seen as very, very strategic. It's only like two months ago or so that I handed over that to one of the guys working for me. So I'm still very much involved, but I'm not anymore on the day-to-day basis. And I had to do that to make room for what I spent most of my time on now. That's the moon program, the new moon program. So we've been doing for quite some years also, let's say robot technology program where we are looking at teleoperation of rovers. Okay. So we want to put robots on the moon and possibly teleoperate them from a space station that is circling the moon. And we will do that with, force reflecting hand controller. So if you are, okay, you're going to feel what you're doing. So when you're operating, you can feel what you're doing. Okay, so you're going, you're going a little fast. So you're, you're working on a module that goes around the moon that we're going to talk about that extensively. Teleoperate these robots that are either on the moon or elsewhere also. Yeah. And then when you control them, you can, you feel bumps or what, what's, how does this work? If it would bump into something, you would feel that. You would feel it. So if you, if you squeeze something, you would, you would feel it. Oh yeah. So you'd feel what the hand of the robot would be feeling. You feel what the arm would be pushing against. And this, this now as I think the force reflecting hand controller has been launched like two weeks ago on the Northrop Grumman vehicle that just went to ISS with supplies. And the experiment is going to be run by Italian astronauts Luca Parmitano on 25th of November from ISS. So then the rover will not be on the moon because we don't have it on the moon yet, but we'll be on earth. Yeah. And we'll be controlled from the ISS. And with that, we completely mimic the situation where you would have a station circling the moon and a robot on the moon. I was at ESA one recently, I think half a year ago, maybe a year ago. Is it the little robot that's there's this test area there where there's a little robot and they told me, I think that they already did a first test of trying to operate it from space or maybe I hadn't seen a video. Has this been going on for a while? Yes, we've done several times. Yeah. This is the last one in a series of eight where in the end, the idea is that now everything would come together. So we've done specific tests on new and more advanced communication technologies that would enable this on force reflection. We've done specific tests. We've done tests with supervised modes and pre-programmed robots. And now we have the last one in the series where everything should come together. And so then you can from space, you can control a robot that's on a surface somewhere. Why not just do that from Earth? Well, that's what we try to figure out. What is the added value if you do it from close by? If you do from Earth, you cannot have the force. You cannot feel the force and because there's too much of time delay. So you have to be somewhere close and some scientists call this within the horizon of what you can feel. So then there's to be less than a second in any case of latency or of delay. Yeah. So you have to for that you have to be close. But we have to test it to find out. Yeah. But really there is so much added value as we think. Yeah. If it turns out that it is equally good to have a pre-programmed robot which gets piecewise commands from the Earth, then we definitely would do it like that because it's a very expensive infrastructure to set up to enable this teleoperation. Yeah. Yeah. And because this implies having a space station around in orbit around the moon. Yes. Well, we all have the space station anyway. Okay. So there's many other reasons for to have the space station. We would not build a space station only for to do this. I can imagine. Of course. That would be a bit excessive. But once we have it. We could and we have the communication system. We could make sure that we can do it. We have to then build in the very scarce space that you have there. You have to build a like a machine interface with some displays and hand controllers. It all takes space and all takes mass. Yeah. And you also have to make sure that the communication is then extremely solid in real time. So you can not have too many time lapses or a loss of signal. Yeah. You work on the communications model for this new space station. So you have a space station that will go around the moon, right? That's that's the the product you mainly manage. Yeah. We do two things. So let's say what we want to build a space station around the moon and we do that with five space agencies. And in there's three contributions from ESA. One is one is a habitation module. So like a living living quarters. We do this European service modules like half of the capsule that takes the astronauts to the space station. And the part that I spent. Almost all of my time on is is is providing the communication between this that space station and the moon and also to the vehicles that are going to land on the moon and it will provide the refueling. So once the space station could run out of it could run out of fuel after a couple of years. What does it run on? What does the space station? What will it run on? They call it by profits. It's it's Mon. MMH is the name of the fuel. I don't remember exactly what is. It's a meteor something or other. It is very very dangerous stuff. Explosive corrosive. Very very high energy content and therefore it can it can be a pretty efficient but still it can run out. So we have to have a fueling station on orbit. I of course you know. No, no, no. I was just thinking if it was there. I was watching the live stream of the test from the Starliner and there was this explode piece of the rocket crashed down to Earth and it was was leading this big cloud of. Horrible. Horribleness. I think that was the same kind of stuff. But yeah, and it's always very important also for launches because and there's always a risk of this. Yeah, the launch goes wrong and then all this fuel gets gets to go somewhere. So you can always see that the launch bases are very often bordering the sea or bordering somewhere near the borders of your country. So at least a half of the fallout is somewhere else. It's only the Chinese have it do it differently. But yeah. And so the module that you were that so these three. Modules will be connected to a space station basically that goes around the moon. This has been an idea of ESA for a while and maybe of NASA as well. It kind of went into the background and then it was at the forefront again because of this American new moon mission. It seems. What mainly changed was the timing. Okay. So this is a planet. We've been working on it for a couple of years already, but was always with with the Americans with NASA with the Russians the Canadians the Japanese and Europe. And I think it came very very much in the news when the Americans wanted to be with people on the moon not in 28 but already in 2024. Yeah. So the Americans the whole thing is in an incredible acceleration, but we still want to go via that space station. So the idea is you fly to the to the space station and then from there you can step over in the shuttle which can shuttle between the moon surface and this space station. And why would we want that? Because it is more efficient. It's easier to get to the South Pole. But maybe and that's where the biggest science merits would be. But it's also because we want to have a if you want a sustainable solution for access to space where you can go repeatedly go to for an affordable price. You can repeatedly go to the to the space station with people with people. Yeah. So if you would really go to only for just a one-off mission, I don't care what I do there. I just I just want to go there and plant my flag and proudly present that we've been on the moon. Then you can also go direct but then you get to the equator. And then you basically do. What has already been done. I am. That's how how compared to the International Space Station that goes around the earth and how big or how small is smaller? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The the ISS is like two football fields that is and that has the the amount of space. Think what the comparison usually make inside of the same as a Boeing 747. So that's quite a lot of space inside and this thing will be like in the 1015 meters long and in the test only like one and a half. Yeah. Of these modules that fit in a rocket. So there's a one module would be maybe like five meters wide and have a diameter of four meters and then you have like one and a half of those and that's where you have to live in. Okay. But not for six months like on the ISS. So they foresee for the in the beginning to be there. Maybe one month per year and when the but those who go to the moon will out of that one month. They'll be on the moon for two weeks. Hmm. So in the end, it's only a couple of weeks and therefore it's manageable. Oh, yeah. And so most of the year. It's it's. Not man 11 months of the unmanned. Yeah. So at the moment we are breaking our brain on what to do during these 11 months because we also know that we are we are a bit susceptible to critique that we built this ultra expensive thing. That's not doing anything for 11 months. So it we have to make sure that somehow it can do science and that it can be a useful relay of communication and and we're looking now at robotics to work inside. So there's this intravehicular robotics working group looking at how can you equip the in the modules in with the maybe some roads on which you can robot can walk or robot can maybe fly or float and we have a lot of concepts on the table for for to do that to to make sure that it is also operated in the 11 months that is there's no people there and there could be also be there could be vehicles could come with supplies with water clothes food and so on and the robot got already unpack these vehicles before the crew can come in. Okay. So it's it's a little bit of a challenge. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The 800 members can fünf in the 20 months and half areiento come up to the results of that, what everybody then goes. This is true. Sci fi? Yeah, of robot, space travel. Like, some school it takes a little a little bit<|it|> net in the end as a service in human Harris, I don't believe in that. No? Okay. Why not? Joeri, one sec. So my official job title is head of robotics and future projects. So in the future project stuff, I do all of this moon mission with a module for the moon, but also in the robotics. And that used to be my main expertise. But I'm very much in favor of cooperation between humans and robotics. I think what they do in Star Wars is really not so bad, is to have a few people who are leading a bunch of robots. And the robots can do everything which is dull, difficult, dangerous, repetitive. And they are really good at it. But you really need the smarts of people to make a useful program. Yeah. Are we already using the ISS as like a stepping stone or experimentation lab for these kind of techniques? We've done it, yes. The Americans have sent one robot, which is called Robonaut. And it's been on ISS for... I think two years maybe. And recently, I think two or three months ago, the Russians have sent a robot called Fedor. You're right. Yeah. Who was also doing work like this. And we have, in ISS, we've developed also a robot like that, which could make spacewalks outdoors and work together with people during spacewalk. And which we have, but we've not gone to the point of actually launching it because that would take a couple of hundred millions, which so far we have not found. But I think the times are changing now. There's more. There's more attention getting into it. So we got to the point of testing that thing underwater. So we could simulate the weightlessness and run through the whole operation. So by the time the time is ripe for it, I think we have the plans on the table. Super interesting. So for 11 months of the year, you would have a robot just doing its chores around the moon. Exactly. I was thinking maybe you can, if the space station shoots out fireworks, then maybe, you know, you can, you know, give the moon an upgrade, like visually. I don't know. I don't know if that's an idea, but. Okay. Yeah. Just shooting out fireworks. Just giving an extra like red ring just for Christmas or I don't know. Maybe we can do it. One thing that is looking at is laser communication. Oh, yeah. So it's not needed for to operate that moon station. So we go with radio frequency signals and that works and it's all known technology. And I think for the moment we have to be happy with that. But I think there's four. Out of the five agencies want to place a laser communication terminal, which can achieve higher data rates and can send laser beams to Earth and with the pulse laser beams with that can transmit information at much higher data rate than radio frequency can. Yeah. Yeah. And if you make it visible, then maybe you have your light show. Your light show. And so you mentioned robotic exploration of the moon being controlled from the space station. What kind of robots are we thinking about? Are these just small rovers? Exploring the surface of the moon or? Initially, definitely small rovers with maybe one or two robot arms on it. And they will pick up rocks and they will put them in sample containers and then the sample containers are picked up and being sent back to this lunar gateway. That's the name of the space station. Okay. Lunar Gateway. Yeah. And from there, from the lunar gateway go with this Orion capsule, go back to Earth. So the idea is that the samples would be taken by, let's say, a vehicle. Which is already there for, to send people. We would not have to invent a specific infrastructure for that anymore. Okay. Yeah. Well, how will it go around the moon? Will it, will it, because you know, the moon is tightly locked to us. How, how will it go? Okay. It is an elliptical orbit, which is, um, um, it's at the furthest point is 70,000 kilometers below the moon. If you, if you have to look at the scale, the moon is 300,000 kilometers away from Earth. Mm-hmm. And, and then 70,000 kilometers below the, um, the moon. Pretty far. So that is the furthest point that this, um, gateway would go. Yeah. But from there, it will, therefore, it will spend a lot of time below the moon. And on the, above the moon, it's only like 2,000 kilometers above the moon. So it comes very close on the North Pole of the moon and very far on the South Pole. But therefore it will, six out of seven days, it will see the moon. Six out of, sorry? Six out of seven days. Yeah. So one, one orbit around the moon is seven days. Yeah. And six out of these days, it will see the South Pole and therefore can communicate with it. And that, that was, um. An important design criteria. But it will always be able to see the Earth. And that's, that's very important. So will we be able to see it from Earth? I don't think so. I think it's too small. Too small? So only if there, if the reflection of the sun happens to be in a certain way. Or it would be, or if it would have been in, in front of the moon. Yeah. Because the moon is, um, gives a lot of light. Yeah. In fact, if you come really close with that lunar gateway, it, it can only be close to the moon for a very short period because it gets too hot. Oh. Because then it would get the heat from the sun. And what? Whatever comes back from the moon. And the moon is incredibly bright. Okay. And hot, therefore. And therefore it gets hot there. Ah, yeah. And why the South Pole? What's so interesting about the South Pole of the moon? Well, they say that, um, well, let's say that the common theory is that the moon has been part of Earth. And has been, um, hit out of Earth like four billion years ago. So it is like a geological museum of Earth because it's completely untouched. And if you go on the, on the South Pole, there, uh, you have, uh, in the craters there's not been any light. Uh, because the crater edges take the light away. The light would come from the side. And they cannot reach in the crater. So the, in the craters, they, they have really pristine, um, uh, say, um, museum of, of Earth. So that, that should be very interesting. And they think there's, well, they know by now there's ice because the Indian Chandrayaan 1, the predecessor of the one that crashed, uh, like in September. Yeah. Um, has found that, that there is definitely, um, um, water. Yeah. Um, yeah. Um, yeah. Um, water there. So that, that, the water is also very interesting. And not only for science, but also for engineering. So it could be used to make oxygen and to make, probably make fuel together with, with, uh, lunar dust. And, uh, so the, the, this whole South Pole is, according to the scientists and the engineers, is more interesting than the equator. Mm-hmm. Okay. And so what, I mean, when, when it comes to manned travel, um, you, they're thinking about a different location? Or is it, are they sort of location agnostic so far? No, they want to go to the South Pole too. Also the South Pole. Yeah. So the South Pole is for both scientifically and say, say, prestigiously one and the same mission. Today, yes. Yeah. Yeah. And, uh, and so even in this speech, um, Pence has said that, so it's one, one woman, one man on the South Pole. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. In fact, one American woman, one American man. Yeah. That's very specific. Because talking about that, um, um, um, it's just about the Americans returning back to the moon. Um, does ESA also play a role in that? Does ESA also play a role in manned, uh, space flight to the moon? Well, definitely yes. But we also know that, um, that the, the first two people on the moon will definitely be Americans. And I think rightfully so, because they put in the most of the money. But we have, um, a lot of discussions on what the contributions are from each of the participating agencies. And whatever your, based on what your contribution is, you also get rights of utilization of, of use of this space station. And also a right to send crew over there. Oh, so it's a bit like the ISS currently. The same, same module. It's all same people negotiating it. The same, we, we use the same standard of negotiating this kind of thing that we have developed. And, um, so we'll definitely have, um, in, in the first step, we're not, today we're, in fact, we're talking about, um, how many astronauts from ESA could therefore go to the lunar gateway. And the next step, if the infrastructure has been developed to actually go to the surface, will be the question, of course. Can ESA, um, astronauts go to the surface? What's the answer? Well, sooner or later, yes. But, uh, the point is when and how often. When and how often? Because is there, I mean, it could be good to have Europeans on the moon, uh, as a prestigious project. But, um, there, is, is that part of the discussion, sort of, to, um, to want to have humans on there? Or is it, is science the, the, the first and foremost sort of goal? I think they, they, they are probably both equally important. Well, what, we get this question a lot. So, why do you do all of this? So, there's definitely science objectives and they are, they are quite easy to explain. But, um, what is also very important is the, um, the curiosity of people, the inspirational value of having astronauts there. The, uh, the desire to look, um, a little bit beyond where you are today. Mm-hmm. So, if, if, um, if an explorer would go past some, some little island, somewhere on an ocean. You would, you would also not say, hey, nice, an island, let's proceed. No, you would say, well, let's go there and find out what, what is there. Yeah. So, we, we have, we do the same thing. And I think, um, if you look at what is the inspirational value of, of, of a space mission. Which we also need in order to get, uh, young people into science and engineering. Uh, we all think that this is terribly important. Mm-hmm. And, um, one astronaut is probably more inspirational value than ten of the most brilliant satellites that you can imagine. Mm-hmm. That you can build. Maybe. Except maybe Voyager. Oh, Voyager. So, Voyager. And, and I think, uh, Curiosity, I think, also spawned some Disney characters. But I, I think, I understand what you're saying. Maybe the, um, uh, logistics of it also. That you, that we're building some sort of infrastructure that can be a stepping stone to Mars. Or that we just have something, um, yeah, we, we just, as, as a sort of like a paved road. Yeah. A road that we paved. It has all started mostly like that for the Americans in any case. Not for the other four agencies. When we were developing this plan like a couple of years ago, we, we still did it together. But for the Americans, the, um, the prime objective was to prepare for missions to Mars. So they had to think, well, we've been to the moon. Now we want to go to Mars. But Mars is so far away. There's so many unsolved problems. Let's try to do this on the moon because we have very good access. And within a couple of days, you are back. And so on. So it was their proving ground for the technologies for to go to Mars. And the other, that was okay. And the other, the other agencies also were interested in the moon. For the sake of the moon itself. But since we could join these goals and make a common program out of it, that it didn't hurt that there was a different reason for doing it. But of course, since then has changed. So now the Americans also are very interested in the lunar surface. And now I think we are, we are all on the point that, that we have both goals of preparing for Mars and going to the moon. But there are really very, very serious problems with going to Mars. It's interesting. By the way, before we go. By the way, before we forget, which, which other agencies are there? Japan, Canada? Russia. Russia. And Japan. Yeah. Okay. So five total. Yeah, exactly. Because a few years ago, the US had sort of set its sights on Mars. Like, hey, let's go to Mars. And that's going to happen 2030s. And then ESA sort of said, okay, well, we're going to have a moon base. So we're sort of claiming the moon here. Now that's all sort of converging into this one larger mission. Yeah. Yeah. And then the US has sort of delayed their Mars program as, as being an ambition for the 30s and not so much a little mission right now. I don't think that this effectively is a delay. It is, it is, you think? No. Oh. I think it was naive to, to claim that you can just go to Mars without testing out and developing the technologies that you need for to do it. And so I guess. Yeah. Yeah. I think that the, the, the moon is a really very necessary step. Yeah. To, to, to get the knowledge to enable you to go to Mars. Yeah. It's actually really nice. Like constantly. It's behind me? It's right behind you. Yeah. I'm constantly, whenever you're talking about the moon, I'm like, ah, it's right there. I can see it. I still find it incredible to think that there are people have actually walked. Yes. It's insane. So whenever I look at the moon, this is still very special. It's insane. I mean, people thought it was a deity for the longest of time. Then it suddenly just became a world. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then 50 years after we first learned how to fly as, as, as a species, we were there. It's, it's, it's so incredible. And it's so weird that our generation also didn't grow up with it. Only with the stories, but not with the, with the actual sight of the people seeing there. I mean, I grew up with the space shuttle. That was about the biggest thing that there was. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, that boldly goes wherever, wherever we've gone a million times before, you know, in circles around the earth. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it's, it's good that countries are agreeing that it is important. You said maybe you can make rocket fuel in, in, in, in a little more of a short term. They will probably get samples to get the history of the earth down better. What other science can you do on the moon except figuring out sort of the history of the, of the earth? One thing that they're speaking of is radiation. Speaking of radio astronomy, if you're on the far side of the moon, then you have no disturbance from any other radio signal because you're shielded from whatever comes from Earth. So that's definitely an application that many scientists want. They have way more clean signals that they can pick up. Like the James Webb telescope that's going to be behind the moon in the Lagrange point. That's the idea, yeah. Would you be able to surface something like that because of a lunar gateway? That it would be easier to surface? Because they all said, you know, James Webb cannot fail. It has to go there, has to work from one go. Now, if there is that infrastructure, would it be easier to? Well, I think in principle it's possible, but I don't know whether it would be economically viable. But the gateway is designed to move from one orbit to another. So it has elevators. It has an electric propulsion capability, which will take a long time, but it can do it. It's pretty cool. It can go in different orbits. And one of the orbits is indeed something, an orbit around the Lagrange point. And there's one thing, though, you don't want to be in the Lagrange point itself. No, you go around it, right? The Lagrange point is the point where there's like a balance in gravity from moon and Earth, but it's exactly behind the moon. So if you're in that point, you cannot talk to Earth anymore. So the ground base will then lose contact. And then... Then you would have to have a set of satellites somewhere which can relay the signal. So this point itself is not the very best point, but it's the best point for a telescope because then you want to be shielded. So there's a little bit of incompatibility of orbit, but it's not inconceivable that you could go there. But to move a whole space station to the James Webb telescope to go fix it, I think that's probably a bit too much. I know they did it with the space shuttle when they repaired the Hubble. And at that time, that was... It was a brilliant mission, but there was also... Basically, it was providing a set of spectacles for this Hubble Space Telescope, which had a mirror which was not perfectly shaped. In the 90s, that mission or the more recent one? No, no, in the 90s. Okay, yeah. But it was an hopelessly expensive mission also to go fix that thing. Yeah, well, I'm glad they did. I'm really glad that they fixed it. Now we bear the fruits of it. Now that we all have new desktop wallpapers, it's very good. Okay. So astronomy, maybe any other science that you can do? I mean, maybe developing these rocket propulsion things, maybe having robots create this fuel out of nothing so that you can sort of mine the moon for fuel? Well, this is something that the mining, they want to see if they can do it. And also the combination of lunar dust and water to see whether that could make into fuel. Really? What is lunar dust? Yeah. Regolith? That's the only thing I know. Yeah, no, I don't know. I don't know that. No chemical. The chemical composition. It's a lot of silica. Chemical scientists here. Yeah. It's a lot of silica. Yeah. And that's also why it's very abrasive. It has a very funny molecular structure and that you should not breathe it. And it destroys everything it comes into contact with. Your spacesuits wear out very quickly. So I know some of the properties, but okay, I cannot tell you what is the chemical formula. No. And so permanent habitation of the moon. That was also an idea a few years ago. Is that still on the table? Okay. We see it as a dot on the horizon. When our director general was starting to talk about this moon village, he got a lot of critique at some point in time. Like, okay, well, when can we actually do this? Is it realistic? I loved it. Well, everybody loved it. But they said, no, okay. But this is weird. At the moment, we don't have any funding for it. It's not a plan that we're working. It's not a plan that we're working on. But it is something that is like a vision that maybe someday we will have. But of course, we will start with much shorter missions. But there have been some designs that look at how you could achieve this. And maybe one thing could be to have such a cylindrical habitation module of a couple of meters wide that you could put on the moon there and then use robotic bulldozers to put the moon dust over it to shield it from radiation. And I think the key point is you cannot live for a long time on the moon because the cosmic radiation will kill you. Yeah. What's the longest people have spent on the moon now? Nine hours or so? Nine, ten hours? A spacewalk? Yeah, just on the surface of the moon. A few days? A few days. A few days even. Yeah, then you have to look at Apollo 15, 16, 17. And so they would stay in their module then? Yeah. I mean, so you can survive for a few days and be all right. For the moment, we are looking at also for the... Upcoming moon mission 24, look at an absolute maximum of two weeks because that's the duration of a day on the moon. Okay. And then if you would have to survive the other two weeks of a month, that would be way more difficult because then you're in the pitch dark and you have basically no energy. And then it would mean that you have to have some nuclear energy source and nuclear is always difficult. Why nuclear? Why not just batteries? I don't know. I'm just... Because they cannot last for two weeks. You need a lot of power. Yeah. You need... Your iPhone goes... True. But after a day. After a day. Yeah, that's true. And also you need energy for the heating because once the lunar night kicks in, then it also gets very cold. It can be cold. You have the two Chinese rovers, U-21 and U-22. So the first Chinese rover was actually... Didn't survive the first lunar night. Some systems were damaged. And the second one, yeah, it's still... But it goes in hibernation whenever the lunar night kicks in just to make sure that all its subcomponents remain active when the lunar day starts. Yeah. Well, yeah. So the lunar night is a big problem, I think. And that you cannot do with people. Yeah. So whatever other equipment... Unfortunately not, no. They put it in a mode where it only survives on a very minimum of power and then you have to switch it back on when it's day again. Interesting, though. When is the first thing going up there? Like, what is the time? The first element of the lunar gateway is planned for 2022. Okay. That's quick. That's very quick, yeah. Yeah. I mean, keep on forgetting it's almost 2020, actually. Yeah, that's in two years. That's in two years. That's true. And I think the first contracts were signed earlier this year. Yeah. Somewhere in June or so with Maxar Technologies. And so they won that competitive thing for what they call the power and propulsion element. So that's the first element of the gateway which has the attitude control. It has the solar arrays for power and it has... All of the propulsion, all of the little rockets that control the space station. And then a couple of months later, the Americans awarded a contract for the first module that can host people. Yeah. And there they did it even in direct negotiation with just one bidder because they were the only ones who have all the technology already on the table to do this in the schedule that they want. And it's launched in 23. Okay. A year after. Super quick. I mean, very susceptible to delays as well, I would assume. I mean, this sounds like such a tight schedule. If anything of these things, there's a slight delay, then there's no moon landing in 2024. Yeah, I think it's very well possible that delays. But I think also, apart from the political background of the White House and Mr. Trump's second term that he would like to have, there's also the thing that they want to give a bit more push to the program. So therefore they put a very challenging timeframe and they want to see whether more can be done by commercial parties in the US. So to get a bit out of the mode where NASA as a huge organization would define a program and have a very, very, very tight control and reviewing and all the engineers who are all over industry who are trying to build this, they want to leave it a bit more up to date. So they want to leave it up to industry also in order to make it a bit cheaper and cheaper and faster. So there is definitely a paradigm shift that more is going out to commercial companies. And you see that the commercial companies pick it up like the SpaceX's and Blue Origin from Bezos. And they try to fill this gap and jump on it. Yeah, I was even thinking that we were just talking about Mars and how that seems to be pushed back further. That Elon Musk would be the one that just takes that spot. But I haven't heard him talk about the moon ever. Really? Well, he's planning a flight with the Starship. To the moon? Yeah, it's a round flight. Yeah, as a test flight. Yeah. And Blue Origin, have they been trying to get some sort of... They want to land something on the moon. They have the Blue Moon project. Oh yeah, of course. And so how does ESA... ESA responds to something like that? Like, do you try to work together? Is NASA working with him? Or is it a one-off from Bezos? Well, NASA definitely works with them. And they sort of find contact. And they also... I mean, it's not fully commercial. NASA does pay them some money definitely in the beginning. And we work with NASA. Sometimes we work directly with these companies. But I think usually still through NASA. So one of the things we discussed... Because before we even started the official podcast is in that how are we going to get our European contributions up there? And we have this huge American launcher that's developed by NASA, the SLS, or Space Launch System. But we have indeed moved over to go with the SpaceX Falcon Heavy launcher, which Musk is making. And the thing which has flown a couple of times, including the first test flight when it had the Tesla Roadster. You're seeing... Exactly. You're saying that ESA would prefer the Falcon Heavy over the SLS. It's way more certain because it has flown already. And it's also not per se that ESA... Because it's clear NASA provides the launch and we provide what goes on the launch. It's a NASA decision to propose the SpaceX launcher. But we are fully okay with it because we also see that it's not so clear when the SLS will finally fly. No Ariane. We've looked at Ariane, but the Ariane is not as powerful as the Falcon Heavy. And also, if we would provide the Ariane, that also would mean that we would have to pay for that launch. Well, it's not the cheapest launcher. So that is also a difficulty. So now we have, at the end of November, the European ministers who are responsible for space, they all come together and they will determine our budget for the next three years. Three years? Yeah. So that includes all these launches? Most of it, yes. And we have now a request from our directorate of space exploration of a couple of billion euros, like two billion, to have the different contributions. And for the moment, we prefer to do that on stuff that goes to the moon and with American launches rather than put all of that money into the use of our own launches. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. I think for the moment we're not doing it. Although I personally would have loved if Europe, at some point in time over the last couple of years, would have found it worthy to invest in our own launcher for people. So we cannot launch people ourselves. That I think is a... So the Ariane isn't human rated. No. Oh, okay. So with this European service model for Orion, that's half of the new capsule that goes to the moon. That's the first program that we have for human-rated, human spaceflight. So it's now the first step. So maybe now we can proceed from that step to do more. Yeah. Let me just get clear what you said about the Falcon Heavy. Is it something that ESA has now preferred? Have they officially spoken out about this? Or is this something that just came up? No, it is our current baseline. Your current baseline is Falcon Heavy. Yeah. Which could be a problem for NASA, because I think that Bridenstine half a year ago said we're sort of open to any suggestions, but in recent months has gravitated more towards SLS again, also because it's almost a prestigious NASA product as well. Yeah. I think this, maybe for the launches that are a bit further in the sequence, NASA may roll back to using SLS. Yeah. But that's mostly, well, I think they want to have this SLS also, but there's also political pressure from Alabama, from the senator, and that it's important in the American environment where it's being built in the Marshall Space Center. And there's not that many jobs in Alabama, and this is a real good one, really good jobs. And high-tech and high-quality jobs. Yeah. So is this going to be... Yeah. Yeah. Is this going to be some sort of... Because there's going to be so many political discussions up to this mission. Is this one of the main ones? Is it not that big of a deal? I think that will end up being a big deal. Yeah. But still then, assume they at some point in time decide, okay, yes, let's go develop the SLS, and let's also go develop the exploration upper stage of it, which at the moment is not built. So now they can launch an Orion, and so they can launch people. But what they cannot launch, they cannot launch people plus something else. And in the plan that was on the table, they could launch like one of the 10 ton or 10,000 kilo modules for the Gateway plus like 20 or 25 tons of Orion all together on one launch. Yeah. And that they are not able to do if they do not build this exploration upper stage. And now they're thinking of maybe they should put the money for it. But then even if they decide to do it, then it's still not... It's not tomorrow that... That the thing is ready. So then it is still a risky program. So it is still prudent to... If you can do it to fly with the existing launchers, and then, okay, maybe you have to make our modules a little bit smaller because the SLS is like five meters wide, and on Falcon Heavy, you have to be somewhere four meters or so. So it has a lot of launch mass. So you can... The mass is not the problem, but the volume is the problem on the SpaceX. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to talk a little bit about... More about the Lunar Gateway itself, the... Space station? The station, yeah, that's going around. If you would have a moon mission, so how would it go? How long to the station? How long would people stay there? When would they do a mission? And can you take us through a mission to the Lunar Gateway when there is something to be happening? So let's say three days from here to the moon. Then you are in orbit around the moon. So a seven-day orbit. And from that orbit, you could go to the moon surface. Like, let me take you one day. You could spend a week on the lunar surface. While there's still people in the station as well? Typically, you go with four people in Orion. Two people stay on the Lunar Gateway, two go to the moon surface. After a while, you get back. You dock again to the Lunar Gateway from the lander. So it's not the same capsule. The human lander system is a separate system. Okay. You step over into the Orion. You fly back again a couple of days to get back to Earth. Okay. And all of that should be within, definitely within a month. And that's what we said in the beginning. That's the one month out of 12. Yeah. Because the whole thing would be like one mission per year. And everybody would go home at the same time. Yeah. Yeah. Cargo wise. No, let me first ask the question that you said. You transfer into a different module to go back up to the station that was already there. Is that correct? Yeah. Is that the one you meant? This whole human lander system is a different one than the Orion capsule. Yeah. Orion only goes to the Lunar Gateway. It cannot go to the moon surface. Yeah. And then, but before it gets there, there's something called human lander system, would already have docked to the space station. And that, if you want a lunar lander and a lunar ascender, something which can go back up. Yeah. And they go together. They go to the moon surface. And then, let's say the bottom part stays on the moon surface. And only the smallest top part goes back to the gateway. Like we know from the original moon landings. Yeah. Because it takes a lot of energy to leave again from the moon surface. Because you have to fight the gravity of the moon. Of the moon. If you see what you have to do to fight the gravity of Earth, you have this ginormous rocket. Yeah. And of course, you cannot get such an enormous rocket all in one piece on the moon. So you have to have whatever you can leave behind. And you leave behind. So in the end, we will litter the moon. Yeah. Like we have done. Like we have done already. But okay. It's for the aliens to find later. So in case we perish, then they can still find some evidence of us on the moon, I think. It's something I never really... It was for a long time hard to wrap my head around how people got back up from the moon. How Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and all those Apollo missions, how they flew back up. Because it always looked like such a small module. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's because the moon is, of course, much smaller than the Earth. So exponentially, the module can be smaller. But yeah, the gravity is only one sixth of what it is here. So you have... It is easier to do from the moon. Yeah. But these modules, these... How do you call them? The ascending module? Ascending module is the one that leaves again. Yeah, exactly. How big is it? And has this human lander module been developed at all? already? Are there ideas? Okay, there are definitely ideas. But I think two months ago or so, NASA has published the request for a proposal for commercial parties to come up with this human lender system. And that will be competitive. But I think that's even a bigger difficulty for to achieve this 2024 schedule is that this human lender system is not there yet. So the contracts aren't there. I think the first ID came out a few weeks ago. Northrop Grumman, the ones who already also built the original lending system. So they came with an idea. I expect something from Jeff Bezos, probably. Still, everything has to be signed. That's insane. There's so much still that needs to happen. I mean, that needs to be built from scratch or, like you said, maybe a follow-up on what they already did with the Apollo missions. And the plans have to change. The plans and the procedures are changing. You cannot say, we have a nine-year plan, let's do it in five years. You cannot say, well, we do the exact same plan in half the time. So you have to change the plan. And basically they have to change also the rules. And so they'll have way more hands-off philosophy from the NASA side. But also there are some things on the technical requirements that are being adapted. Like, for instance, they had a more modern method of communication. Like, if you want internet or protocols for communication. And this has been declared the standard for the Gateway. And then obviously for the first two modules that are going to Gateway, they say, well, we're not doing it. Thank you very much, but we're not doing it because we have no time. We can only develop with what we have. So there's some of the more fancy implementations they go lost. Or they can only be implemented later because of the Excel. Yeah. Then it's a choice. You can say we still make something really very fancy and then we are later. Or do we want to go earlier? And I think the choice has been definitely made to go as soon as possible. Yeah, suddenly. But who knows who the next president will be because then it might just change. How's the commitment from ESA? The Americans have set this sort of sharp goal and a lot of prestige involved. ESA is always a bit more science-y, a bit more sort of bureaucratic because all these different parties need to agree. We'll find out at the end of this month. Because at the end of this month, all these programs are up for approval. And, okay, starting to look good, but we still have to get the signatures of all of these member states to put the billions to make it happen. Only then will we really know. So you don't expect any problems or any big upheavals from the ministerial conference? Well, it's always possible because these negotiations are going on as we speak. And it is quite common in the ministerial conference that some things are kept only for the last moment. So it is, and the member states have sometimes different interests. So for some it is very important that we are able to fly our astronauts. And on the ISS we can fly an ESA astronaut for half a year per year. So we have lots of traffic of astronauts. And so this is very important. And if on the Gateway and on the Moon you can only fly very, very occasionally European astronauts. So if that is your main priority, then maybe the lower orbit around Earth is more interesting. For some, maybe Mars is interesting, some the science is more interesting. But maybe today all of the member states are very interested in Earth observation satellites because we have this whole climate change story where we just want to measure the deforestation and the melting of the ice caps and the... the temperature of the oceans and so on, which I also think is very, very, very important. So I completely understand that priority. So basically all the member states have their own priorities and we have to somehow find the right mix between all of that. So we'll know when the dust has settled on the 28th of November. But for the moment we think that we're going to be successful in getting our exploration programs funded. And the Russians, Canadians and Japanese, how are they? Canadians and Japanese have already taken their budget decisions and the Russians not yet. Okay. And so the budget decisions are good for Lunar Gateway? For those, yes. Yeah. Okay. And when can we expect a date when the first European astronaut will set afoot on the Moon? Is that something that's... I have no idea. Okay. No, a specific question. That is not even up for discussion today. So we know that even in this 2024 plan there will be... we'll start with Americans and when in that sequence it will be us, we don't know. For the moment we are negotiating the access to the Gateway. Okay. So that's the only thing that's up on the table now. Okay. You're negotiating the access to the Gateway? For European astronauts. Okay. So just that it is indeed even possible to send someone there. Imagine the discussion... And when and how many? And which European country do they come from? I mean, that's the next discussion. Yeah. Okay. And that's always very difficult. Yeah. Because in principle we have a competitive process for the... to get new astronauts in ESA. I think last time there were like 10,000 applications for six spots. And then in principle we just try to take the best. But it is always still the case that every country is more excited about one of their compatriots. That's flying than somebody else. There's still a bit of an element of that. Yeah. Well, we're going to have to see. Juri, any more questions about Gateway or landing on the Moon? Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. China. I mean, US and China, they're not going to cooperate on anything. But I saw some reports about European astronauts working along with Chinese astronauts. China also has plans to go to the Moon. Are there any ideas for cooperation with China on lunar programs? Ideas, definitely, yes. But this is... It's really very, very, very difficult. And we have already had initiating discussions on... To start with the steps where we would provide some hardware to China. And in return we would get like a stay for European astronauts on Chinese space station. Okay. But so far it's not happened. And we definitely have an issue with the Americans because, as you rightfully say, Americans do not want to work with the Chinese. And that is really difficult. But for them it's extremely strategic. The Americans are incredibly afraid of the Chinese stealing their technology. So they have quite difficult export control rules for any military or space strategic technology to go out of the US. So this big international aeronautical conference, which was two weeks ago, that it was in Washington and the Chinese were not there. Officially because they had visa problems, but nobody knows whether that was the real reasons. So this is difficult and it is especially difficult because the Americans will not let us provide hardware to China, which has any American either equipment or knowledge in it. So there's export control regulations. So there's export control regulations from the MEX. Say we have our docking mechanism. Not many, but there's a few components that are American. And therefore they say, well, you are not allowed to export these components to China. Therefore we cannot provide this docking system to China. Therefore we cannot use it to build our cooperation. So we have to find European equivalent for these elements. Yeah, but that makes it extremely difficult because on the one hand you want to develop as much with the Americans as possible. So cost benefits, of course. But you're not, then you have to develop some kind of different technology stack just for the Chinese. Yeah, and that's not efficient at all. But basically what with the export control rules, what the Americans are effectively doing is to divide the world. So you either have to cooperate with the Americans or you cooperate with the Chinese, but you cannot on the same thing cooperate with both. And at some point in time they've even said that if there would be systems from us that had been reviewed by NASA experts and they're provided comments and they say due to the fact that we've reviewed your system, we provided comments. Therefore effectively there's already American know-how in your system. And therefore we still do not want you to export it. And one of the things that they do, and we got in also in our, we have courses for international project management and we got, of course, trained in what is ITAR regulations, what they are, like international traffic and arms regulation ITAR. Yeah, the reason why I am always refused at bases in the US, because they need an elaborate sort of tour that you probably had the same that ITAR regulation, you always have to go through it in order to get to any sort of rocket technology. But there's access to the US, but ITAR is mostly for exporting stuff out of the US. But what makes it really difficult is that it's let's say it's personal. So if we would export something anyway to China or to anywhere else on the axis of evil, for instance, then it's not that they put a claim on ESA as our organization. But if I would do that and I would then go to Houston, then they could put me personally in jail. So they make it personal and therefore everybody is very, very careful with this. How dominant are the Americans then in this whole mission? Something that ESA a few years ago seemed to have claimed its own sort of space. Now that it's a joint mission, how dependent are we on the Americans? It depends a bit on what field of space technology we're in. Like on the Earth observation satellites and launches, we can do that all by ourselves and we're incredibly good at it. Or communication satellites, whatever. Science. But on space exploration, these are such incredibly large programs that it's always done in international cooperation. We cannot say, well, forget about that. We're going to run our own space exploration program. We'll go to Mars all on our own. We cannot do it. We have not the technology and we have, well, not all of it in any case, and we have not the money. And not the political will. Yeah, I think it's the same as the money. Yeah, exactly. Things go hand in hand often. Yes, totally. Yeah. Why not? Why do we not have that money? The technology you can buy, I guess, but why do we not have the money slash political will? Yeah, I think that this is a priority matter. I think that, yeah, again, even if you have to balance space against, I don't know, agriculture and fishery and making sure people have to eat and that they can live, so that's already one thing. Then you have to compare it to maybe other science. So do we want to invest in nuclear fusion and ITER? Do we want to invest in CERN for nuclear physics? Where do you want to invest? Or in space science? And then if you go to space, then you still have to choose, do I want to go spend money to go to the moon or do I want to spend money to look at the Earth and see how we can somehow deal a little bit with the effects of climate change? So there's a lot of gates that you would have to pass before you finally get to the point of having money for the moon. And I think all of those are completely understandable. Yeah. But now that you're here, can we hear some of the whispers from the hallways in ESA? I mean, we've had, when it comes to space exploration, we've had Rosetta as a gigantically successful mission from ESA. Is there anything long term that ESA is eyeing that you're excited about? Okay, well, obviously the space exploration program, but the space exploration program is not a big deal. Okay, well, obviously the space exploration program, but the space exploration program is not a big deal. Okay, well, obviously the space exploration program, but the space exploration program is not a big deal. But it would be really difficult to work in there if I was not excited about it. But it would be really difficult to work in there if I was not excited about it. No, well, I think the science to evolve going to comets and go really far away, that is still incredibly exciting. But next to the space exploration, I'm the biggest believer in whatever we can do directly to look at Earth. But I mean, space exploration wise. So I mean, going to Europa, maybe Titan, maybe revisiting Uranus or Neptune. But I mean, going to Europa, maybe revisiting Uranus or Neptune. But I mean, going to Europa, maybe revisiting Uranus or Neptune. Crazy things like that. No plans at ESA that you've heard of? No, okay. Well, first of all, it's not what I'm doing. So I cannot claim to know everything. What is the new plan of any new magic science missions? And also, if you would have sent me the question before, I would have taken the effort to look it up. Sorry, I just popped up. Sorry, I just popped up. Well, we'll ask the future. The future program. One thing about it is that they did extremely well with Rosetta. That they had a decision process before they did it to find out whether we would run the mission and then whether it's okay to show it to the general public what we've done. But they have not done so. And they have much nicer. They've decided to take the general public along in the mission with all the risks and all the risks that it could possibly go wrong. And this lander, which could either get there or not, could bounce and it could fall on its side. And there's a zillion things that could have gone wrong. And some things did go wrong because it was not absolutely perfect. But because of that, it made the mission way more interesting. Yeah, it made it exciting. It made it more human endeavor instead of just a technological process. Yeah, I think that was a great thing. And immense added value out of that. Yeah, true. So again, that's why we also want European astronauts on the moon, I guess. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much, Philip, for being here. You're on holiday right after this. Tomorrow, South Africa. Yes. Lovely. Very nice. Very nice. As it's cooling down here, I am a bit jealous. Although I just went on holiday. Thank you so much. Did we miss anything? Is there anything you want to tell our listeners? No, I don't think so. It was absolutely fine. It was a pleasure to be here. Yeah. Great. Thank you so much. Juri. Thank you. Same. And we're going to talk about the moon more in the coming weeks. We sure will. Yeah. We sure will. So stay tuned for that. Thank you all for listening. Bye.