A Draft Roadmap for European Colonisation of Space

I am from a country and a continent facing decline. To reverse it and take our place in the stars we need bold moves.

European spaceflight has fallen behind; SpaceX have taken the commercial launch market which was a decade ago dominated by Ariane 5, have rapidly increased the rate of launch and satellite manufacture beyond our ability to keep up, and perfected first stage reusability which remains at the concept stage in Europe. We lack a human spaceflight program of our own, and our ability to explore other planets is largely tied to collaborations with others.

If we want to still be relevant in world affairs into the 22nd century, and not become a declining forgotten backwater, we need to rectify this. We need to have our own citizens, governments and industries reaching out into space and imprinting ourselves on the future civilisation that will form out there, and will ultimately eclipse the civilisations of Earth. Here I am going to lay out a rough plan to take the first steps over the next two decades.

To try and get things going in the UK, I have started a petition to have the government commit 1% of government spending to space. If you are in the UK please consider signing it. Having the public conversation about how much we spend in space will hopefully lead to a discussion of precisely what we should try to accomplish with such spending. I’d also encourage similar campaigns across the continent.

Let me paint a picture of where I think Europe should be 20 years from now. We want a permanent population living off Earth, and the ability for ordinary citizens to travel there, in order that everyone can participate in building up the economy in space. Mars is a bit of a tall order for us - although on this timescale I am confident SpaceX will send people - and ticket prices will remain high for the foreseeable future, limiting participation. The Moon, asteroids and Lagrange points are better from an access point of view only in travel time, and still incur travel costs relative to simply getting into orbit.

Therefore, we should have a rotating habitat in low Earth orbit, large enough to house thousands of people. We should have regular flights to it using a Starship-like vehicle that can take hundreds at once, reducing ticket price per head to be reachable for the middle classes. This habitat should receive a constant stream of cheap materials from the Moon and nearby asteroids. Those living in this orbital city will then have all the factors of production needed to build the next steps out into the cosmos, without the barrier to entry of launching from Earth.

At different points in the same orbit as the habitat, large facilities such as data centres will be maintained, and will be easily accessible to the workforce on the habitat if needed - although likely day to day maintenance will be performed by robots. A lot of human work in space will be looking after robots. There will also be propellant depots located in the orbit, and solar facilities to extract propellant from mined rockets. This will support travel from the habitat to interplanetary destinations as they open up.

This would all take a lot of building. So the discussion here is on how to get it done, step by step.

The Critical Path

In the 1970s, Gerard O’Neill produce a plan to colonise space, step-by-step. His work is detailed and worth reading, as is the 1975 Stanford study inspired by it. But broadly speaking the plan to build a habitat in space had four steps:

• Mine. Dig up and extract resources from lunar rocks to provide sufficient building materials, beyond what can be feasibly or affordably launched from Earth

• Transport. Use an electromagnetic mass drive to accelerate materials from the Moon to a Lagrange Point, where they would be caught by a series of coils

• Build. With this stream of materials, construct a large habitat in cislunar space

• Spin. Rotate the structure to the required rate for artificial gravity

These steps were to be completed sequentially, and only when all were completed would the habitat be usable. Although let down by changing political winds, and the underperformance of the Shuttle as a launch vehicle, I believe this is one of the reasons the project was never taken up.

A figure from the 1975 Stanford study showing the sequence of acquiring a transporting materials

Had President Gerald Ford initiated it, Congress funded it for as long as needed, and the timeline in the 1975 study been met - then the ribbon cutting on an actually usable habitat would have been performed by President Bill Clinton, in his second term, and with few of the members of Congress around who started it. Politicans tend not to be so selflessly generous to their long distant successors who may be from other parties.

As an alternative, which is more politically and economically viable, I propose that these four steps should be pursued in parallel as distinct projects, each returning value in itself, and then synthesised on completion.

Here is how I envision the project unfolding

Years 1-5: Ramp Up

Although Europe has a well developed space program for science, from the point of view of colonisation we are at a near standing start, and so there would be some lag between an agreement to do this and the launching of significant hardware into space. There are somethings we can do quickly though.

Launch costs represent a significant barrier to entry for space startups, and Europe’s commercial launch sector is still in its infancy. We can solve both problems by providing state support for companies to fly tech demos that are relevant to the program. Rather than simply throwing money at those chosen by a space agency, market information can be used by requiring each applying company to raise a certain amount of money to be eligible.

There is no shame in using foreign (likely US) launch capability at this point if that is what it takes us to achieve our objectives. We likely need to build larger spaceports in Europe if we wish to attract them, but we would have to do that any way to build our own heavy lift capability. This should be done in this ramp up phase.

We should use Advance Market Commitments (AMCs) to drive investments we will need for the next phase. This is where the government promises money for a future service, triggering economic activity in the sector without having to put any taxpayer money in until the task is complete. This is advantages for nations struggling with growth, as many places in Europe are. This could see the launches of already in development European vehicles such as Nyx and Argonaut with payloads for the program.

Anything from the subsequent years that can be bought forward, should be bought forward. For instance, there are likely on this timescale to be commercial providers for space station modules, so an intermediate station can be built if it would facilitate what happens next.

Years 6-10: The Four Tracks

Having had some years to build up relevant capabilities, we can now suppose that Europe is ready to send the first major missions into space. Here is what they may look like

• Mine. Using either ESAs lunar lander, or another commercial one, missions should fly to the Moon to set up mining infrastructure. At this point we might hope that the US or China has a lunar base, and we can potentially provide any resources gained from this to them.

• Transport. There are multiple ways to shift materials off the Moon; we don’t need to be specific at this point about which to use, only to require a demo that does not require a lot of launches. Ideally a single lander could carry the equipment. A sling launcher, where two payloads are spun around until they reach escape velocity, may be an optimal solution.

  At the other end, we need to catch the payload. The ‘catcher mitt’ from the original 1970s plan can work, but as we are aiming at LEO there may be solutions involving aerocapture of use of the Earth’s magnetic field. The aim of this track is to bring some mass from the Moon to SSO around the Earth, in whichever way is economical enough to be competitive with launching from the surface.

• Build. At this point we can start making large structures in space. First should be a rigid structure large enough to function as a momentum exchange/electrodynamic tether. We want a large rotating structure that the habitat can be built on to as we go, and this also has the advantage of being able to accelerate payloads from its tip, so it can support operations at the Moon or nearby asteroids. In electrodynamic mode, such a structure can also be reboosted without using rocket propellant, which is essential for a very massive structure in low orbit.

• Spin. We should send a single module, rotating space station into LEO, with an inflatable ring that spins to produce gravity. This will allow us to quickly answer critical questions about human adaptation to spin gravity and to levels of gravity between 0 and 1. Initial stays may have to be short - 30 days or so - due to radiation concerns in the chosen orbit, but adding a little extra shielding should be possible and allow extended missions which can get the answers we need

Years 11-15: Synthesis

At this point all tracks will be independently producing their outputs, and starting to be mutually complementary. Now is the time to initiate final construction.

We are not immediately constructing a habitat for thousands; we want a usable station for many fewer people that can be expanded to the final size. We will build a large rotating frame in the shape of the desired habitat, and attach a temporary inflatable ring module to it for crew accommodation during construction. Larger inflatables can be added as we go. A combination of lunar materials and Earth launched materials will be bought to the site, and a large drum structure assembled and pressurised.

How to Make it Happen

The key now is to secure commitments from European governments - get in touch, let them know it’s a good idea, and have them agree in principle. The project can get going with no immediate expenditure of money, as long as they are committed to a slow ramp up over time.

It may seem now to be frivolous, or premature, but think where the likes of SpaceX, Blue Origin and the Chinese government will be in 15 years time. We should not be asking how Europe will catch up with what other great powers are doing now - we need to aim for where the ball is

As suggested in the title, this is only a draft. I’ve already spoken to other experts in the field and bought in their ideas, but I would like to hear more from anybody who can critique/contribute. Please comment below or get in touch via email if you can help.