ESA's Director of Earth Observation Answers Questions
What happened and why -- two of the
biggest questions facing the European Space Agency and Russian
space officials after CryoSat, the ESA's orbiting Earth
observatory, crashed into the sea over the weekend. Volker Liebig,
ESA’s Director of Earth Observation, Monday answered
questions on the loss of ESA’s CryoSat due to launch
failure.
What does this loss mean for Europe and for the
scientific community?
CryoSat was meant to be the first satellite of ESA’s Earth
Explorer series. These missions are tailored to respond to
particular needs of the international science community. CryoSat,
the first of the series, was devoted to the study of ice,
monitoring precise changes in the thickness of polar ice sheets and
sea ice. In particular, CryoSat was meant to be a very advanced and
unique tool for scientists to study trends in the depletion of
polar ice and to improve the understanding of the relationship
between ice and global climate.
This loss means that Europe and the worldwide scientific
community will not be able to rely on such data from the CryoSat
mission and will not be able to improve their knowledge of ice,
especially sea ice and its impact on climate change.
What impact will this loss have on the future of Earth
Observation activities?
CryoSat is the first mission to be lost after a long series of
successful Earth Observation missions for ESA (Meteosat, ERS-1,
ERS-2, Envisat and Proba-1).
This is a big loss for ESA’s Earth Explorer Programme, but
it does not jeopardise the overall strategy and approach of
ESA’s Living Planet Programme, nor of Explorer missions. The
planned series of dedicated Explorer missions to follow are still
on track and will be built as planned. These are: GOCE, devoted to
Earth gravity, in 2006, SMOS on soil moisture and ocean salinity,
planned for 2007, and ADM-Aeolus on Atmospheric Dynamics.
Whether there might be delays in the launch dates of future
missions due to the launch failure will be assessed once the
Investigating Commission of the Russian State authorities has given
its results on the reasons for the launch failure. However, it
seems to be unlikely taking into account the long interval between
the various launches.
Can you carry out the same research with other existing
systems such as the US IceSat?
IceSat is a US satellite mission devoted to ice. It carries
different instruments to CryoSat. CryoSat would have had the
advantage of a very precise radar altimeter as a unique all-weather
tool to measure ice thickness.
In addition, CryoSat was meant to fill the gap of a few degrees
in terms of coverage of the poles that exists with the currently
running missions like IceSat.
Cooperation with the US on IceSat will be investigated by the
European scientific team engaged in CryoSat in the field of the
planned calibration campaigns.
Can ESA rebuild the
satellite?
This is one of the things we have to study now together with
industry and the scientists. We have to analyse which parts and
systems are still available, in which time frame it could be
achieved and for what cost. Then we have to go to the Programme
Board and ask for the decision of ESA’s Member States.
How much would it cost?
This cannot be said as of today. On the one hand we still have
many things available like the ground segment and operational
budgets; on the other hand it will depend on the price industry is
ready to offer for a second model. The industrial contract to build
the first satellite was 70 MEuro, out of a global envelope of 136
MEuro including ground segment, three years of operations and
launch costs. A “clone” of the original CryoSat should
be less expensive.
How long would it take?
Again this question can only be answered after a careful
assessment. I cannot give a precise answer immediately. I imagine
it would take some three years as we do not have to start from
scratch. The design phase has already been done once and we would
“only” have to go through manufacturing and
testing.
Would ESA use the same launcher operator?
Before taking a decision we will have to wait for the results of
the Inquiry board and assess the time needed to build CryoSat 2.
The decision on the CryoSat 2 launcher would be taken in due
time.
What are the options for the Ministerial Conference in
the Earth Observation Envelope Program?
So far we have received much support from our Member States for
the next phase of the Earth Observation Envelope Programme
(EOEP-3). We will do our best to fit this mission within the
financial envelope we will be allocated by the Ministers. It is
clear that we will be able to optimise the chances of rebuilding
CroySat if the EOEP programme is fully subscribed to by ESA Member
States at the Ministerial Conference in December.
Will this event have an impact on ESA’s
relationship with Russia?
Space has always been a risky business. Failures can happen on
each side. From this end I do not expect any impact on relations
with Russia. I wish to underline that in this particular case we,
ESA, were customers to Eurockot, the launch service provider, which
is a joint venture between EADS Space Transportation (Germany) and
Krunichev (Russia).