The Future of European Flagship Programmes in Space Report 53 November 2015 Marco Aliberti Arne Lahcen Short title: ESPI Report 53 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print), 2076-6688 (online) Published in November 2015 Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel. +43 1 7181118-0; Fax -99 Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose with- out permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 53; November 2015. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publish- ing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, inciden- tal or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: Panthera.cc ESPI Report 53 2 November 2015 The Future of European Flagship Programmes in Space Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 7 2. The EU and the Space Endeavour 9 2.1 The European Union: An Emerging Global Actor 9 2.1.1 What Kind of Actor? 9 2.1.2 From Coal to Space 11 2.2 The EU in Space: The Institutional Framework 12 2.2.1 A Complex Framework 13 2.2.2 First Steps: From the Joint Task Force to the European Space Policy 14 2.2.3 Toward a More Pro-Active EU Action: The Lisbon Treaty and the EC Communications. 16 2.3 The Current Flagship Programmes in Space 19 2.3.1 Galileo: Europe’s Independent Global Navigation Satellite System 19 2.3.2 Copernicus as an Operational Environmental Monitoring Programme 22 3. Copernicus and Galileo: Priorities for Operational Governance 24 3.1 Optimising the Benefits of the Current Generations 25 3.1.1 Copernicus 25 3.1.2 Galileo 29 3.1.3 Validating Benefits at the Policy Level 31 3.2 Creating an Innovative Ecosystem for Operational Services 32 3.2.1 The Components in an Innovation Ecosystem 32 3.2.2 The Flows in an Innovation Ecosystem 35 4. Towards a New EU Flagship Programme in Space? 38 4.1 Debating a New Flagship Programme 38 4.1.1 Flagship Constituencies 39 4.2 Identifying Potential Candidates: Space Exploration 40 4.2.1 Status of Europe’s Space Exploration Programme 40 4.2.2 Is there Added Value in EU Involvement? 43 4.3 Identifying Potential Candidates: The Launcher Option. 46 4.3.1 European Launchers: Past, Present and Future. 46 4.3.2 Is There Added Value in EU Involvement? 51 4.4 Identifying Potential Candidates: Space Security 54 4.4.1 Status of Europe’s Space Security Efforts 55 4.4.2 Is there Added Value in EU Involvement? 59 4.5 Assessment of the Future Flagship Options 61 5. Conclusions 64 List of Acronyms 66 About the Authors 69 ESPI Report 53 3 November 2015 Executive Summary For over sixty years the European integration evaluated and coordinated continuously and project has been expanding and deepening that in some cases the possibility to under- immensely. From an original narrow – yet take further initiatives with regard to benefit historic – cooperation in the production of optimisation should be considered. More spe- coal and steel, EU policies and actions of to- cifically, it turns out to be the case especially day affect nearly all segments of the Euro- in the Copernicus programme, which is char- pean social, economic and political landscape. acterised by a degree of uncompensated de- At the moment, the European Union is in the centralisation in its various operational re- middle of asserting a stronger role in space. sponsibilities. It is doing so because its mandate and com- As a second step, the report assesses how petences have now become so broad that the two current flagship programmes can space activities and policies are crucial ele- play a central role in spurring innovation eco- ments in supporting and addressing them. An systems in their respective sectors. Here, it is additional motivation is the fact that strategic advocated that four essential components assets like space capabilities, would benefit should be addressed in terms of critical mass from validation at a high political level. Fur- and innovation flows. More specifically, inno- thermore, space provides the EU with a tool vation should be pursued in both the up- and to further the European integration project, downstream segments and, both by institu- increase its political weight vis-à-vis Euro- tional and private actors. In this respect it is pean Member States and assert its role as an demonstrated that Europe has already actor on the international stage. It is thus achieved a remarkable position in the grow- likely that EU involvement in space will con- ing markets of satellite navigation and Earth tinue to expand both within and beyond its Observation. Nonetheless, a number of issues current undertakings. and sub-optimised flows remain. The report The aim of this report is to assess how this shows how addressing them could result in expanding role in space could be enhanced more performant, competitive and innovative from a policy and governance perspective sectors that would in turn spur future sus- and to support the reflection process for the tainable growth in Europe. European Commission and other European EU ambitions in space are not solely ex- stakeholders in determining whether, in pressed by the current flagship programmes. which area, and in what way the will to in- Considerations are also made on how EU crease EC involvement in space activities involvement can be taken further in the fu- could be channelled. ture. However, before elaborating on the After demonstrating how the explicit choice possibility and opportunity for the EC to ex- for involvement in the fields of environmental tend its involvement in space matters beyond monitoring and global satellite navigation has Earth Observation and satellite navigation by to be understood over time, the focus is first means of a new flagship programme, another on the governance challenges and priorities more fundamental question should be raised, for the operational phases in the current Co- namely whether per se the flagship model pernicus and Galileo programmes. As provides the most appropriate framework for Europe’s new and autonomous all-round the conduct of the EC’s future space activi- Earth Observation and global navigation sat- ties. After all, the financial and administrative ellite systems will achieve full operational difficulties encountered over the years by status in the near future, it has to be assured both the Galileo and Copernicus programmes that the data and services provided by the have shed some doubt on the long-term suit- constellations can be reaped in an optimal ability and sustainability of current schemes fashion. Key elements in doing this for the and could therefore induce the Commission first generation of systems turn out to be the to prefer an alternative approach to space, different institutional support functions put in for instance, that of having a dedicated place and their structures. It is argued that budget item for space to be allocated to a although important steps have been taken for plethora of undertakings. It is, however, con- both programmes, this remains an ongoing cluded that in the short-term it is more likely effort for which many initiatives need to be ESPI Report 53 4 November 2015 The Future of European Flagship Programmes in Space that EU involvement in space will take the prolonged political commitment spanning form of new flagship programmes. over multiple decades. In order to outline in which area and to which • In the launcher domain, an active EU in- extent a new flagship programme by the EC volvement would be mainly justifiable could be channelled, the report set out gen- because the EU could critically comple- eral considerations on the criteria defining EU ment existing launcher capabilities in flagships and the underlying benefits ex- Europe. More precisely, it is argued that pected from their implementation and opera- the EU would be in a good position to tion. On the basis of this assessment, three pursue more radical innovation in the different candidates are identified as potential launcher market segments, innovation candidates for future EU space efforts, that is currently not addressed or re- namely: (1) space exploration, (2) access to searched with anything close to sufficient space and, (3) space for security. funds. This option would therefore mainly be justifiable through a combination of This particular selection is based on a number commercial and geopolitical drivers. The of considerations. For one thing, the three associated socioeconomic benefits might domains are among the most substantial be less pronounced compared to the ex- elements in the programme of any spacefar- ploration option. This mainly stems from ing nation, and thus constitute elements to- the fact that ESA has already achieved wards the possible creation of an EU-led an invaluable position in the sector. The “European Space Programme”, as explicitly EC involvement scenario for launchers contemplated by article 189 of the Lisbon does score significantly in that it would Treaty. Second, in the first two cases, they potentially give Europe a stronger, per- were already indicated by European Union haps cutting-edge advantage in terms of institutions as interesting areas for Europe in long term competiveness and innovation. which to take a leading role. Finally, in all The latter is especially relevant consider- three cases there is – to a certain extent at ing the many game-changing technolo- least – room for added value generated by gies in this global and rapidly evolving EU involvement that intergovernmental ap- field.