As the space shuttle program winds down, the European Space Agency is working on its new generation of spacecraft and future manned space missions. To learn more about European space science, Deutsche Welle turned to Thomas Reiter, one of Europe's most experienced astronauts. During the 1990s, he spent nearly six months on the Russian space station Mir. Then, in 2006, he spent another half a year on the International Space Station. In April 2011, Reiter became the head of the European Space Agency's Directorate of Human Spaceflight and Operations.

Deutsche Welle: Five years ago, you flew on the space shuttle Discovery to the ISS and returned safely back to Earth. What do you remember most about this trip?

Thomas Reiter: I have only positive memories. It's tempting to compare that trip with my trip on the Russian Soyuz, which I flew on 14 years earlier. The space shuttle is, of course, a bit more comfortable.

Thomas Reiter served aboard the International Space Station in 2006

There's much more room, both going to and coming back from the space station. Even re-entering the Earth's atmosphere is more comfortable as the gravitational acceleration during re-entry is not as high. On the space shuttle it's only 1.5 times the force of gravity, while on the Soyuz, it's four times. And after six months of weightlessness in space, that's quite a difference.



Now that the space shuttle program is over, the only way NASA can carry people into space will be via the Russian Soyuz capsules. Are they not an adequate replacement?

They serve their purpose as a means of transportation. Even though it's not particularly comfortable, it does go up and comes back down again. The point is to make it safely to the International Space Station. And this can be done by the Russian Soyuz capsules too. But, it can hold far less cargo. That's the crucial point, because the shuttle could carry seven people in the cargo bay along with a payload of 20 tons into space and back.

For scientific samples that are processed on board the ISS, this reduction in carrying capacity is obviously a loss. But now that the shuttle has been discontinued, we will survive with this bottleneck for three to four years.

The space shuttle will be replaced by private commercial operators. Should we rely on them?

It is an important step, to use commercial firms for such tasks. And I think the entire space community is looking with great interest worldwide towards this experiment. I have no doubt that it is possible for this limited task. However, one can not solely depend on using such providers over the long-term. Maybe other options will be possible in ten or fifteen years.

At the moment it is important to have a combination of new private companies as SpaceX, which must still prove that they can provide these services, and established institutional facilities such as the shuttle or the Soyuz. The ISS will be there until at least 2020.

The International Space Station will temporarily only be serviced by the Russian Soyuz capsule

Does the cancelling of the space shuttle program jeopardize the ISS in the medium term?

No way! The ISS will continue to be supplied with the available vehicles, not only with the Russian Soyuz - but also with the Russian space freighter Progress, the European ATV and a Japanese system, HTV. That's guaranteed until at least the end of this decade.

However, the transport of people will become better with the availability of new transportation systems, such as the SpaceX's Falcon 9. In addition, one has to consider the trip back to Earth and a certain level of safety, which unfortunately has been an issue for the Soyuz capsules and the shuttles. [Ed: both the Soyuz and the shuttle have suffered two fatal accidents during their operational history.]

Mr. Reiter, you are responsible for the ISS within the ESA. What is the scientific significance of the space station?

In principle, we are still at the beginning of the use of the ISS. That does not mean that we have not used the last years very intensively for scientific experiments. ESA has already conducted several hundred experiments in various disciplines, from human physiology, materials science, biology or physics fundamentals on board the ISS. This will continue for the rest of the decade.

Of course it's about recouping the investments of the past decade. We're focusing close attention on the role of ESA and my directorate: to ensure and maximize the use of new knowledge through research that we've achieved there. In particular, we're interested in the development of new technologies for the benefit of the people here on Earth.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, right, met Reiter in 2006 prior to his shuttle mission

How is the European space program in comparison to the Americans' and the Russians' ?

One needs only read the daily newspapers to realize that there are huge economic problems in Europe and around the world. Still, against this background, we are in good shape. Our expertise in Europe, in science, industry, research and development is very good compared with NASA and the Russian space agency, but also in comparison with the emerging space powers, China and India.

Compared to NASA, we have only a fraction of their annual budget. NASA has 14 billion euros ($20 billion), and ESA has approximately 3.5 billion euros ($5 billion). And only a fraction of that goes into manned space flight and the operation of the ISS. I must say that Europe is very efficient, despite our many member states that have to approve our decision-making process.

You've mentioned India and China. What roles do the two new space-faring nations have, both now and in the future?

China and India are in a phase where they want to build the capacity for manned spaceflight. China has proved it twice already. The country is currently in a phase where it will soon be on par with the major aerospace engineering nations such as the US and Russia. If that happens, I see great possibilities for cooperation on the research tasks in near-Earth orbit as well as further research tasks on international missions.

India, however, is still not quite there yet. The country plans to start its first manned mission in the middle of this decade. We are following it with great interest. We know that this is a difficult path. There is a difference if a country can “just” shoot satellites into space or carry people on them as well. Clearly, we need more reliable, secure systems.

Both nations are perceived to have important roles in international scenarios. For the future of the exploration of outer space by humans, I think this is a fantastic development and I also hope that Europe will play an appropriate role.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, space flight was a prestigious, political symbol. Has this changed now? Has the global aerospace industry lost its political significance?

No, I do not think much has changed. Today, space is still, to a certain extent, a status symbol. Many people in the countries involved in the aerospace business, identify themselves with hi-tech. This has a decisive impact on society in the fields of technology and science. There is an incentive for young people to become interested in science.

China is a rising space power

It gives impetus to the vision of what can happen in the future. But this competition as it existed during the Cold War is over, thank God. There is still a contest, but on the industrial side. But I think that this will play out at a healthy level, because we know that competition is good for business. This is also true for space.

One of NASA's next major goals is putting a human on the surface of Mars. Is the same true for ESA?

Of course it is, in my view, the ultimate goal, to put people on the surface of our neighboring planet. When that will be is difficult to estimate. I estimate it will take at least 20 years. In this respect, these scientific missions are very good preparation, which simultaneously brings us more knowledge about our neighboring planets: Is there water? Are there possibly traces of life?

In my view, before a manned mission to Mars can take place, we need to develop a number of new technologies. So, it is natural to first return to a somewhat nearer goal, namely, to the moon. There, you can develop and perfect important technologies such as life support or protection against cosmic radiation. Then maybe 20 or 30 years down the road, we will be ready to actually send people to Mars.

Interview: Tobias Oelmaier / cjf

Editor: Anke Rasper