A science blog with Eric Berger

Will NASA’s decision push the Europeans into Russian or Chinese arms?


As most readers probably know by now, in the President’s just released-budget NASA has axed its EXO Mars partnership with the European Space Agency to pay for the over-budget James Webb Space Telescope. It was a difficult decision, but in a tight fiscal environment perhaps it was unavoidable if we were to save the Webb telescope.

Nevertheless the decision has both scientific and diplomatic implications.

The key question in my mind is what this decision will do to NASA’s relationship with ESA, which long has been a steadfast partner for the U.S. space agency, most recently with the International Space Station.

Artist's concept of the ExoMars/Trace Gas Orbiter mission. (NASA/JPL)

My concern is that ESA will see NASA as an uncertain partner, and look to foster deeper relationships with Russia and China. Already ESA has asked Russia to join the EXO Mars exploration plan, and it has partnered with China on the Double Star Mission.

With these questions in mind I interviewed Ian Pryke, who served as head of ESA’s Washington office for two decades between 1983 and 2003, and is now a George Mason University professor of space studies. Herein, then, are his thoughts on the news.

How will this decision by NASA to abandon the EXO Mars partnership affect its relationship with ESA?

“It’s hard to say because ESA and NASA do have a very strong relationship. Anything like this, however, it really must color the waters when it comes to future discussions.”

Do you think it will have a long-term effect?

“It doesn’t do anything to create an environment more amenable to cooperation in the short term. But one would hope that the cooperation has been so strong this is something that the two parties can eventually work through.”

Do you see this decision pushing the Europeans into closer relationships with Russia or China?

I don’t know about pushing, but I think ESA is open to looking at partnership opportunities where the partnership opportunity makes sense. The United States doesn’t represent one-stop-shopping when it comes to partnerships in space.

When I spoke with him Pryke also noted that this isn’t the first time NASA has backed out on commitments to ESA, citing the Ulysses mission to study the sun. Several decades ago NASA backed out on providing one of the spacecrafts needed for the mission, but a revamped experiment eventually flew and the relationship was patched up.

Of course, back then, there weren’t other opportunities for partnering with other space agencies besides NASA.

Our relationship with ESA is a question worth pondering as, if we’re ever going to send astronauts for meaningful missions beyond low-Earth orbit, we’re probably going to need international partners.

Categories: Space
Eric Berger

21 Responses

  1. TomTom1978 says:

    They technically didn’t cut anything. What the administration has proposed is cut funding for others and increase spending for items they see fit. On top of that it will also increase taxes by 1.3 trillion.

  2. ScientistMike says:

    I wish you had not asked “yes/no” questions, as this approach tends to constrain the type of answers you get back.

    E.g. the 3rd question might have been, “How do you see this affecting the relationship of the Europeans with with Russia or China?”

    That approach generally yields more interesting responses.

  3. Dr_Prunesquallor says:

    Much ado about nothing. The President’s budget is completely dead on arrival. The chances of ANY budget being passed this year is zero – continuing resolution (again).

    • Marty says:

      It’s too bad. They are finally cutting the right area of the government. How many meteorologists do we need to be wrong? Especially when we have The Weather Channel!

  4. rts says:

    Just another example of our country being pushed to the side as others lead the way. We will soon be an isolated has been, extolling to the world that we are the leader and greatest on earth. In the 1960′s, we went to the moon in less than 8 years, using only slide rules and crude computers. Now, we can’t do it in less than 15-20 years with super computers and decades of experience.

  5. Meiczyslaw says:


    It would behoove us to ask the Europeans. They’d know what their options are.

    I know, it’s a novel concept. Like (for example) asking the Canadians what they’d do if we turned down Keystone XL.

  6. BKT says:

    Everybody knows that if the president has his way he will do away with NASA and turn it all over to commercial industries.

    • Chris Hyman says:

      Obama has asked for INCREASES for NASA every year except this one. His requested budget for NASA is always larger than Congress has been willing to fund. He extended the shuttle program by two missions (remember the VSE had it ending ‘by 2010′, and has extended ISS support. His decision to move LEO development into a competitive arena is already yielding results, and should leave the US in the position of never having to be without manned craft again. The administration position (as pretty much recommended by the Augustine Commission) is, turn LEO transport over to competitive development, use NASA for deep space and high end R & D. It’s a fairly sensible approach.

      Some of you are aiming at the wrong target here.

  7. Lou says:

    Looks like Hansen has been cooking data… Shame on him.

    • JohnD says:

      Lou, Lou, Lou…

      You really need to go out and get some sunshine as your rants aren’t even tangentially connected to the topic anymore. Go. Take a breather. We’ll still be here when you get back, just waiting to hear all about how the ancient Egyptians were given UFO technology to prevent climate change so they wouldn’t get heart attacks from a lack of Vitamin D.

    • Sgt Pepper says:

      Oh no, please don’t send him away! I want some of whatever he’s taking. Besides the vitamin D, that is.
      C’mon, Lou, probably a lot of us nerds here are single. Share.

  8. Bill in Houston says:

    Why do the Euros need to partner with anyone? Aren’t they supposed to be a great economic power that will stand the test of time?

  9. Mike H says:

    It always interesting to see how fast this topic can be politicized. Putting all of that aside, the Apollo program was done when NASA funding made up a much larger piece of the pie (4% I think as opposed to .5%). So, while I generally agree with the notion that “we did it once, why can’t we do it again”the economics just don’t work out. If it were me I’d shift the budget around so that the excess spending on DOD and the waste in some of the Entitlement Programs could be pushed into the needed infrastructure, science (NASA) and art areas.

  10. StanleyS says:

    Back during the 1960s, an important reason for our huge space successes was that we were continually afraid that we were going to be mass-nuked by the Soviet communists. It almost seems that when we no longer fear annihilation we become incapable of effective decision-making and follow-through.

    Many of you are too young to remember those days, but believe me, when I was a kid during the 1950s the thought of “communists” really had us scared! In fact, that’s what the two sci-fi flicks “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” and “Invaders from Mars” were really about.

  11. Jim says:

    I don’t worry about Obama’s decisions.
    He makes one, then people come along
    and change his mind
    and he makes another one.

    What concerns me is the $3 billion that
    is going into Iraq from the Pentagon when
    we supposedly have no troops there.
    At the same time Syria and Iran
    are being prepped for full-scale war.

    NASA is really a dinosaur program.
    If you want to see tomorrow’s toys, look at
    China. Look at the US Air Force.

  12. craig says:

    My understanding is that the Europeans are in even worse finanical shape that we are. How are they going to have enough bucks (make that Euros) to even go halves with some other partner besides the US of A for attempts to explore Mars at this point? Other than some fleeting prestige our landing on the Moon really didn’t buy us all that much. I am guessing that if China or Russia wants to sink lots of money into a trip to Mars similar results will accrue to them. Let them make that big show play if they want to. It will mean less funds to do potentially bad things closer to home.

    The one possible, and it is a remote possibility at that, is that stretching the limits of science with an attempted Mars excursion might result in developing some appreciable advance in the speed we humans can travel in space. If that came about then they would have something to crow about and maybe use to our disadvantage but I wouldn’t put money on it happening.

  13. justbob says:

    remember, this money is being redirected to his other social programs, there are no budget cuts.

  14. PDQPete says:

    I think it would be more likely that the Europeans would stop their planetary exploration programs altogether due to budget constraints, than to accept the uncertain but sure-to-inflate costs of integrating their current programs with new partners who are not particularly forthcoming about their own programs and systems specifactions.

    Add to this the fact that these programs may not be cancelled after all: threatening a program with extinction is one way to force its budget back in line. It gets the attention of the empire-builders in the organization and forces them out of their complacency.

    That said, these programs still really could disappear. Without a real manned space exploration program, who needs maps of places we won’t go?

  15. hunter says:

    Breath takingly bad leadership.