Talk:European Space Agency
|
|
| Contents |
who wrote this???
eads here, eads there, DW....? who wrote this stuff? Germany is a zero contributor to the Aurora and Vega programmes (as well as the pan european Orfeo), and is almost the only vountry not to have visited ISS (besides Andorra and Monaco). France leads the pace in ESA and is hardly mentioned. Links to EADS all over the place, but none to Alcatel Space or Alenia Spazio?? Today (21 June) Alcatel Space delivered EGNOS to ESA while the Alenia Marsis instrument on Mars Express started operating. Phoenix??? you must be kidding... EADS everywhere because of the clear teutonic flavour of this article, but EADS is French-based in the end!!!!! Just look at the number of Frecnh vs German employees. Also Eurocopter HQ are in Marseille, Airbus and Astrium in Toulouse. Anything serious Astrium does (e.g. Eurostar family of spacecraft) is French. EADS biggest boo-boos however (see ESA enquiry inti Artemis launch failure) are German. Danke, herr komandant!
- I wrote "this stuff", and no I am not a German. If you want to contribute something constructive to this article - please do so, but in a different style. As to your allegations concerning "German-EADS all over the place" - not sure what you mean, EADS is a multinational corporation (as you just mentioned yourself) and has a lot of projects going on with ESA, so what? And if you want to mention Alenia Spazio in the section on the ATV go ahead, the same goes for Alcatel Space. And by the way, we normally sign our comments here on the talk page - just use 4~ if you're already signed up (what actually only takes 1 minute). Themanwithoutapast 02:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)n in
So that when you look at the number of prime contracts of Astrium (you should really talk abouot EADS for launchers) and Alcatel/Alenia the latter has the lionīs share, yet was until recently not mentioned. Thatīs what. If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia then it is supposed to inform, and to lend itself to facts. Under Future Projects, the EADS Phoenix stands out like a sore thumb, since all the others have either been already approved or are very likely to be approved.
Expansion and restructuring
Made same larger expansions- especially budget and history. Some pics here should be checked for copyright vios. Themanwithoutapast 15:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Arianespace - ESA
Is ESA responsible for the Ariane 5 program, or is it Arianespace? I have to admit I'm not too sure of the real relationship between ESA and Arianespace; perhaps someone who does understand could clarify -- AdamW
- Looks like an employer-contractor relationship to me [1] (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iss-00za.html) --Ed Poor
- Ah. Looking through the history, it seems this has already been dealt with - ESA develops the things, Arianespace gets them into orbit. --AdamW
ESA-Astronauts
Why no mention of ESA astronauts? I don't understand the difference between ESA and national programs well enough to add much myself. Rmhermen 16:49, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
- Good idea. As far as I know, the European astronauts are indeed organized in the ESA Corps of Astronauts, with no European country having its own corps --UsagiYojimbo
EADS Phoenix
I was just wondering, shouldn't the new EADS Phoenix shuttle be included in this page? Although made by a private company, it certainly seems te be meant for ESA usage.. (or I misunderstood this whole Phoenix thing, please feel free to prove me wrong ;p ) I'd add it myself if I wasn't somewhat insecure of my Wikipedia editing skills (lack of experience, I don't want to mess up the whole page by accident).. -- Kraftwerk
- Don't be too afraid of accidently messing-up. There is history and everything can be reverted. Also there is a preview ot view the changes before implementig them. Also there is a separate sandbox to experiment with
Accuracy
"ESA consists of fifteen member states that is, it is the product of a merger of (or comprises of) national space organisations from these countries"
Not sure this is correct - I don't think here in Ireland we have a "national space organisation". Our contributions, are, I believe, directly through our Universities and some generic (not space) national bodies (Enterprise Ireland, the economic development agency, may be involved). Zoney 23:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, for some countries there are "National space organization", for other - there are not such. I will try to correct this, but check it afterwards...
too much France is leading
Italy also makes many contributions (to the ISS for example) - like France is making to the Ariane... I think that maybe "French leading role" ("France is the main contributor" sentence at the end of the membership list) is just an assumption by the writer and not based on hard facts?
- I've added a section with budget numbers and contributions by Italy, Germany and France. Themanwithoutapast 01:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Luxembourg, Greece - admission date
I changed the date of Luxembourg and Greece from 2005 to 2004, becouse of the information on the page that I also linked there. It states "Greece and Luxembourg are expected to become members of ESA in 2004", but the former wording of the page here was "G and L to became FULL MEMBERS in DECEMBER 2005" - so maybe in 2004 they will become NOT FULL members and a year later - FULL members?
Seems that the map (without Greece) is not up to date...
Financing the organization
I was surprised to read that almost half of ESA funding is from France. Is there any truth in that? If so, i am proposing that we mentionit somewhere in ESA article. I think its worthy it. Here is the source. [2] (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=150615&cid=12632171)
Date for operational CEV
Bricktop, the article you mention does not give a new date for the CEV to carry out its first operational (manned) flight. As far as I know (and the last press statements: [3] (http://www1.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jun/HQ_05146_contractor.html) says nothing different either) are they still sticking to their original launch dates of their spiral development plan - for the moment. What they have done is to move the selection date from 2008 to 2006 and to eliminate the parallel design phase of a CEV by both teams - Boeing and Lockhead. In fact phase 1 (now ending 2006) has been reduced to solely an "advertising compaign" between the two competing companies (and their partners). When they decide to go for one of the proposals in 2006 it will take AT LEAST 4 years (minimum) to launch an actual built spaceship into orbit (remember no work (except the proposal) has been done until now). They need a minimum of 2 unmanned flights for testing - this brings us to a manned launch date to 2012 as the absolute earliest date possible. However, as long as they do not announce a new date I think we should stick to the still official dates (+ I added a comment on the new development). Themanwithoutapast 20:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, the new version is fine with me. Although there are no official new launch dates, Griffin stated repeatedly he wants CEV to fly in 2010 or little after that to minimize the gap between Space Shuttle retirement and CEV introduction. But I also not except first manned CEV flight occur before 2011-2012 – with a development time of 3-4 years (for Lockheed with their CRV and OSP experience) and two unmanned launches. --Bricktop 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)