Lust on Europe's Space Plans

The development of the free-flyer will give us expertise in many areas, including control over our own low-gravity materials processing studies and in the various areas of robotics which will be involved in helping maintain and service parts of the platform. In general, Europe will have more freedom than if it had only the attached module. DEPENDENCE ON PUBLIC MONEY Q: Would you explain the rationale behind putting large sums of money from governments, rather than from the private sector, into space developments? Lüst: The first thing to understand is that there is little chance of gaining a quick economic return from space science and technology. To promise otherwise is to misrepresent your aims to the public. The first justification, I would say, is that public money spent this way increases general scientific understanding in areas such as telecommunications, Earth observation and basic areas of science, where the benefits are for socicty as a whole. Secondly, investment in projects such as the manned space station are likely to produce a commercial return in areas such as a better understanding of materials and biology processes, but this will be some time in the future. Thirdly, space projects lead indirectly to technological developments in fields such as electronics and materials, which can benefit industry as a whole. I don't think we can leave the funding of these areas to Japan and the U.S., where in both cases the governments provide substantial funds for space projects. Q: What about the prestige aspect of large-scale space projects? Lüst: I would not say the questions of leadership and image figure highly in the ESA plans. But certainly there is an advantage from seeing the ESA program as a sign that Western Europe is vitally interested in the important area of space technology and that we can work together in realizing technological goals. Q: To return to the funding argument, the British government says there should be more of an effort to persuade private companies to finance areas of space technology such as launcher programs and the Columbus project. What is your view on this? Lüst: Space science and technology are sectors which in continental Europe it is generally believed should be funded by society as a whole rather than commercial enterprises. There is very little prospect of getting industry to provide funds for, say, the international space station. Comparisons with other transportation projects are just not valid. Take, for instance, the Channel Tunnel [the proposed rail link under the English Channel between Britain and France which is to be funded largely privately]. Here private-sector finance is justified because the project will be generating traffic and revenue almost immediately. You cannot say the same about an orbiting space base. Industry normally thinks of getting a return on its investment in times of six or seven years. In space the returns may be 30 years away. In space there may be some corners or aspects where we obtain funding from private concerns. But by and large the financing of these projects will be left to governments. Q: What do you think of the comment from the U.K. government that Europe cannot afford the new ESA program? Lüst: I can't accept this view at all. We are trying to achieve a manned space capability by the end of the century, which we are doing via the Columbus and Hermes programs, and also to remain competitive with the U.S. in launchers, which we hope to do by developing Ariane-5. This is a more powerful version of the existing West European Ariane rockets, which besides lifting satellites will have the additional function of carrying Hermes into orbit. These objectives are bound to cost more money. Compared with the U.S., Western Europe spends much less on space technology, roughly one sixteenth of the sum-per-capita. Measured as a proportion of gross national product, we will still be behind the U.S. by a factor of between five and eight, even if we succeed in increasing the ESA budget to about $3 billion a year by the mid-1990s. Q: What is your view of ESA's achievements? Lüst: There are two examples in Europe where the scientific community has workedtogether in an unambiguously successful way. The first is CERN, the European center for research in particle physics. The second is ESA. The agency has collaborated well with industry and has organized its programs without being over-expensive, certainly not by comparison with similar programs in the U.S. Among ESA achievements I would single out the development of Ariane, a project which has involved advanced technology has led the rocket to become today the dominant launcher in the area of commercial satellites. ESA has launched 21 satellites and I am proud to say all have functioned. Lastly we have a scientific and engineering capability in the form of ESTEC [the ESA Science and Technology Center in Noordwijk, Holland] which In Europe is unmatched. I would describe ESTEC as the engineering brain behind the agency. Q: What role do pure science programs play within ESA? Lüst: ESA spends about 10 percent of its budget on pure science, in areas such as astronomy and scientific satellites, and we hope to increase the expenditure in stages to the early 1990s. The amount of money spent in this area compares unfavorably with that available to the purely scientific space community in the U.S., where the sums spent are three or four times greater. This means we have to be highly selective about the projects we back. We certainly cannot afford to compete with the U.S. when it comes to planetary missions. To try to do this would be over-ambitious. Q: What is your general approach to being head of the agency and administering a large array of scientific and technical programs? Lüst: Scientists are human beings. They are usually convinced that their own particular bit of science is hugely important for the whole world. Therefore they are always eager for more funds. In this area established lobbying groups are normally in a better position than people trying to start new areas of activity. But I had a lot of experience in administering different areas of science in my time at the Max Planck Society. I tell my colleagues I have not lost my memory from that time, when I was involved with an organization administering 55 different areas of science and with a total budget of about $500 million. You have to be convinced that individual projects are worthwhile and that different programs are kept in balance. Being in charge of ESA, with all the political and industrial questions which arise, is, however, a totally new experience. You have to deal with people from different countries and from a range of disciplines. When you have a success the job is rewarding but at other times it can be frustrating. Q: Have you ever thought about going into space yourself? Lüst I don't think I would like to. I look upon space vehicles like airplanes; they are simply a means of transport. I am never eager to stay in airplanes longer than necessary. Lüst was interviewed in November for THE SCIENTIST by Peter Marsh, who is on the staff of the Financial Times in London. This is an edited version of their talk.

Lust on Europe's Space Plans

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of