Talk:European Space Agency/Archive 1

Budgettable extra row
What about a row that show the percentage of GDP of the state? Most times percentage of GDP shows more than the actual number... --78.35.219.200 (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite Comparison with other space agencies' first para
"In terms of absolute cash budget size, ESA has the second largest budget after NASA, with the Japanese JAXA having annual funds of €1.6 billion ($2.0 billion) at its disposal[20] taking the 4th place after France, the Russian Space Agency (RSA) which incurred a considerable boost in funding in 2006 with an annual federal budget of $1.3 billion (international astronautical federation) in 2007.[21] The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has $815 million official budget according to The total ISRO budget for the year announced by Finance Minister P. Chidambaram (space news 06 March 2006).and the Chinese $500 million official figures by Luo Ge, vice administrator of the China National Space Administration (Singapore-China Economic&Trade 2006-04-04). If not counted as part of Europe's total space budget (ex-Russian) together with ESA's €3 billion space budget (as outlined above) and other European space agencies, the French Space Agency would be in 3rd place with €1.7 billion ($2.2 billion).[attribution needed]"

Bolded the languagewise rather questionable parts. Jellotrees 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bdget comparisons with China and India corrected
The "along with NASA, ESA is in another league" because of it's budget size was grossly misrepresented, since it did not take the PPP (purchasing power parity) into account especially for India and China. I have inserted a note about that. With that correction, the largest budgets are as follows:

1. NASA: ~14 billion Euro

2. China: 9 to 11 billion with PPP of 4 to 5 (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4333158.stm)

3. India: 3 billion (with a PPP of 5.5 to 6)

4. Russia: 2.5 - 3 billion (again their PPP ratio is pretty big, plus they have lot of commercial revenue, giving them a budget bigger than ESA)

5. ESA :

6. Japan :

Note that the budgts of China, India and Russia are growing rapidly, so these numbers are going to be grossly off even in 2 years and need to be updated regularly. One of the shocking events that might happen soon - as early as 2013, is that China's space budget might become larger than NASA's budget in purchasing power parity, while still growing rapidly after that. Welcome to the Age of Young Giants (http://www.sandgun.com/pages/share/marssociety/newGiants.ppt).


 * I made some clarifications to the budget section. It is certainly true that PPP is a factor for a true comparison, however not all costs are labour costs and jobs in high-tech industry tend to have higher absolute salaries even in countries such as China, Russia and India. In addition salaries do not even reach 30% of the costs of space programs and raw materials, computers and other high tech materials cost the same regardless in which country you are. Still, a true comparison of space budgets would need to consider even more elements, but it certainly cannot be calculated as direct as you do it by just multiplying absolute numbers with PPP numbers. Themanwithoutapast 17:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

gunjankg

who wrote this???
eads here, eads there, DW....? who wrote this stuff? Germany is a zero contributor to the Aurora and Vega programmes (as well as the pan european Orfeo), and is almost the only vountry not to have visited ISS (besides Andorra and Monaco). France leads the pace in ESA and is hardly mentioned. Links to EADS all over the place, but none to Alcatel Space or Alenia Spazio?? Today (21 June) Alcatel Space delivered EGNOS to ESA while the Alenia Marsis instrument on Mars Express started operating. Phoenix??? you must be kidding... EADS everywhere because of the clear teutonic flavour of this article, but EADS is French-based in the end!!!!! Just look at the number of Frecnh vs German employees. Also Eurocopter HQ are in Marseille, Airbus and Astrium in Toulouse. Anything serious Astrium does (e.g. Eurostar family of spacecraft) is French. EADS biggest boo-boos however (see ESA enquiry inti Artemis launch failure) are German. Danke, herr komandant!


 * I wrote "this stuff", and no I am not a German. If you want to contribute something constructive to this article - please do so, but in a different style. As to your allegations concerning "German-EADS all over the place" - not sure what you mean, EADS is a multinational corporation (as you just mentioned yourself) and has a lot of projects going on with ESA, so what? And if you want to mention Alenia Spazio in the section on the ATV go ahead, the same goes for Alcatel Space. And by the way, we normally sign our comments here on the talk page - just use 4~ if you're already signed up (what actually only takes 1 minute). Themanwithoutapast 02:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)n in

So that when you look at the number of prime contracts of Astrium (you should really talk abouot EADS for launchers) and Alcatel/Alenia the latter has the lion´s share, yet was until recently not mentioned. That´s what. If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia then it is supposed to inform, and to lend itself to facts. Under Future Projects, the EADS Phoenix stands out like a sore thumb, since all the others have either been already approved or are very likely to be approved.

Expansion and restructuring
Made same larger expansions- especially budget and history. Some pics here should be checked for copyright vios. Themanwithoutapast 15:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arianespace - ESA
Is ESA responsible for the Ariane 5 program, or is it Arianespace? I have to admit I'm not too sure of the real relationship between ESA and Arianespace; perhaps someone who does understand could clarify -- AdamW


 * Looks like an employer-contractor relationship to me --Ed Poor


 * Ah. Looking through the history, it seems this has already been dealt with - ESA develops the things, Arianespace gets them into orbit. --AdamW

ESA-Astronauts
Why no mention of ESA astronauts? I don't understand the difference between ESA and national programs well enough to add much myself. Rmhermen 16:49, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Good idea. As far as I know, the European astronauts are indeed organized in the ESA Corps of Astronauts, with no European country having its own corps --UsagiYojimbo


 * Regarding the list, some of them are now retired (Guidoni, Perrin, etc). Should the list be a list of all ESA astronauts of all time or only the active ones ?Hektor 10:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When I rewrote the article some time ago I did not make any changes to the ESA astronauts section, I guess the more astronauts (retired or not) we include the better. Themanwithoutapast 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the active ones should be flagged one way or another. The number of actual active European astronauts is an interesting piece of information.Hektor 23:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

EADS Phoenix
I was just wondering, shouldn't the new EADS Phoenix shuttle be included in this page? Although made by a private company, it certainly seems te be meant for ESA usage.. (or I misunderstood this whole Phoenix thing, please feel free to prove me wrong ;p ) I'd add it myself if I wasn't somewhat insecure of my Wikipedia editing skills (lack of experience, I don't want to mess up the whole page by accident).. -- Kraftwerk
 * Don't be too afraid of accidently messing-up. There is history and everything can be reverted. Also there is a preview ot view the changes before implementig them. Also there is a separate sandbox to experiment with

Accuracy
"ESA consists of fifteen member states — that is, it is the product of a merger of (or comprises of) national space organisations from these countries"

Not sure this is correct - I don't think here in Ireland we have a "national space organisation". Our contributions, are, I believe, directly through our Universities and some generic (not space) national bodies (Enterprise Ireland, the economic development agency, may be involved). Zoney 23:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, for some countries there are "National space organization", for other - there are not such. I will try to correct this, but check it afterwards...

too much France is leading
Italy also makes many contributions (to the ISS for example) - like France is making to the Ariane... I think that maybe "French leading role" ("France is the main contributor" sentence at the end of the membership list) is just an assumption by the writer and not based on hard facts?
 * I've added a section with budget numbers and contributions by Italy, Germany and France. Themanwithoutapast 01:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

yes and the budget chart is now wrong. since 2008 Germany pay more money then France. please correct this. my English is to bad^^ sry. maybe on esa.int you can find the new budget chart.

Luxembourg, Greece - admission date
I changed the date of Luxembourg and Greece from 2005 to 2004, becouse of the information on the page that I also linked there. It states "Greece and Luxembourg are expected to become members of ESA in 2004", but the former wording of the page here was "G and L to became FULL MEMBERS in DECEMBER 2005" - so maybe in 2004 they will become NOT FULL members and a year later - FULL members?

Seems that the map (without Greece) is not up to date...

Following its ratification of the ESA Convention, Luxembourg has become ESA's 17th Member State with effect from 30 June 2005. - internal ESA memo! sofar 09:26:14, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Financing the organization
I was surprised to read that almost half of ESA funding is from France. Is there any truth in that? If so, i am proposing that we mentionit somewhere in ESA article. I think its worthy it. Here is the source. 

Date for operational CEV
Bricktop, the article you mention does not give a new date for the CEV to carry out its first operational (manned) flight. As far as I know (and the last press statements: says nothing different either) are they still sticking to their original launch dates of their spiral development plan - for the moment. What they have done is to move the selection date from 2008 to 2006 and to eliminate the parallel design phase of a CEV by both teams - Boeing and Lockhead. In fact phase 1 (now ending 2006) has been reduced to solely an "advertising compaign" between the two competing companies (and their partners). When they decide to go for one of the proposals in 2006 it will take AT LEAST 4 years (minimum) to launch an actual built spaceship into orbit (remember no work (except the proposal) has been done until now). They need a minimum of 2 unmanned flights for testing - this brings us to a manned launch date to 2012 as the absolute earliest date possible. However, as long as they do not announce a new date I think we should stick to the still official dates (+ I added a comment on the new development). Themanwithoutapast 20:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, the new version is fine with me. Although there are no official new launch dates, Griffin stated repeatedly he wants CEV to fly in 2010 or little after that to minimize the gap between Space Shuttle retirement and CEV introduction. But I also not except first manned CEV flight occur before 2011-2012 – with a development time of 3-4 years (for Lockheed with their CRV and OSP experience) and two unmanned launches. --Bricktop 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is too long
I think this article is too long and should be split in an umbrella article and various topical article: Human spaceflight at ESA, Earth observation at ESA, Space exploration at ESA, etc.194.183.196.141 4 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)
 * Don't think so, see peer review (was critized as too short) Themanwithoutapast 4 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Removed template cleanup
As there were no specific reasons given on adding the cleanup-warning, I removed it. Please state specific reasons, otherwise it is impossible to improve the article in the requested direction. Themanwithoutapast 00:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

First European in Space
I find this quote very strange "It is therefore not surprising that the first European in space was not an ESA astronaut on a European space craft: It was Czechoslovakian Vladimir Remek who in 1978 became the first European in space - on a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft, followed by the East German Sigmund Jähn in the same year." As far as i know Soviet Union was european and Yuri Gagarin as well. So, it would be the first European not from the Soviet Union, not the first european.
 * fixed it - next time if you find something unclear or wrong, be bold and just edit it. Themanwithoutapast 02:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Energia
The Manned section references the Energia being the only rocket to launch Kliper. This is problematic, as there have been no Energia launchers built since 1989, and there is no capacity in place to build any today. A thought, perhaps we should delete a lot of this speculation and just redirect to the Kliper page. Mentioning it here first before I wholesale slash & burn. - C HAIRBOY 20:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No; it references the Energia being the only rocket capable of a direct launch to the Moon, Mars or similar. Ariane 5 and the forthcoming Angara could both be used for launches to low (or in the case of Ariane 5 ECB, if it even enters service, not-so-low) Earth orbit. There, Kliper could be used in Shuttle-like roles, or an engine could be assembled (as in one of the Soviet moon-shot plans) in space and used for interplanetary travel. 134.226.1.136 16:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The latest change from "billion" to "thousand million"
I am aware that there are different interpretations of billion, but writing "thousand million" instead seems very un-scientific. Is there an agreed use of billion in the Wikipedia? --UsagiYojimbo 13:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

thousand million is the same as a billion. i suggest sticking to use of billion. if there are different interpretations of the value why not write it out in full or with scientific notation. --Lti 12:57, 23 February 2006 (GMT+12:00)

NO, thousand millions IS NOT as billion... Look at Short Scale and Long Scale here on Wikipedia. I propose the International Standard (K€, M€, G€) 151.21.165.66 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong a billion is a thousand million NO ONE uses the obsolete million million definition and only a cretin would try to make that point. Why don't you just stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.29.120 (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ESA Image use?
Can anyone clarify the use of ESA images in Wikipedia? The ESA web site says (emphasis mine):


 * The contents of the ESA Web Portal are intended for the personal and non-commercial use of its users. ESA grants permission to users to visit the site, and to download and copy information, images, documents and materials from the website for users' personal non-commercial use. ESA does not grant the right to resell or redistribute any information, documents, images or material from its website or to compile or create derivative works from material on its website. Use of material on the website is subject to the terms and conditions outlined below.


 * All material published on the ESA Web Portal is protected by copyright and owned or controlled by ESA or the party credited as the provider of the content, software or other material.


 * Users may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the content, software, material or services, in whole or in part, without obtaining prior written authorisation. In order to obtain authorisation to display or use any content of the ESA Web Portal, please make a request for authorization by clicking on '[mailto:contactesa@esa.int Contact us]'. 

So does this preclude use of ESA images in Wikipedia? Pretty much all of the above rights would have to be granted if the image license was to be compatible with the GFDL. Any information? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I found, which pretty much explains it. Looks like the images can't be used.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See also: and meta:ESA images  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Asking for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Kliper and 2006-2011 budget
The ESA meeting in december 2005 acknowlegded a new budget for the agency, this should be mentioned in the budget section. Rokosmos will hold a closed meeting on the third of february to hand out contracts to companys bidding in on the construction of Kliper, EU countries are also urged to participate in the event.


 * I updated that section. Themanwithoutapast 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

AREV
According to this article AREV still exists, and is - in contrast to other test projects - fully funded. Themanwithoutapast 00:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. You are mixing AREV, an ESA study, with USV-Prora, an Italian national endeavour from CIRA. AREV was not a project, it was an ESA study, of 12 months duration. It was successfully carried out by Alenia and the final presentation was performed some time in late 2005. But there was no follow-on for a further study. You can look for it in the papers of the Ministerial Conference of last year without finding any trace. The only demonstrator under way right now in Europe are Pre-X supported by CNES and DLR and currently in Phase B and the USV-Prora  which is an Italian national project. ESA proposes to merge all that (AREV heritage, Pre-X and so on) in the IXV  under leadership by NGL Prime SpA.


 * Oh I forgot there is also Expert


 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up and providing the links. Themanwithoutapast 00:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

laughable budget comparisons
What an interesting budget comparison somebody has tried to write up between ESA and NASA. Comparing the 13billion euro NASA budget to the 3billion euro ESA budget and attempting to scramble the numbers to make them equate is ridiculous. I point specifically to instances where NASA's space shuttle is used in the budget paragraph to demonstrate some sort of efficiency in ESA that NASA lacks or that the development costs of future manned vehicles by NASA is taxing their research budget. Well no kidding, developing and maintaining manned missions is significantly more expensive and risky than purely unmanned work, but how does that make ESA somehow on par with NASA in this area. It is the very fact that NASA supports ISS/Shuttle/Future manned flight that they require such massive expenditures that ESA can avoid. It sounds like a POV pusher is trying to somehow compensate for ESA's lack of manned work by needlesly demonizing NASA. This so called comparison fails to mention the 3 great space based observatories (Hubble/Spitzer/Chandra) or to look at massive GPS/NRO/NAVY related expenditures that the US puts billions of additional dollars into outside of NASA. These comparable expenditures are factored into the European side (Galileo GPS) but not the US. Anyway, why not just say that ESA is what it is (efficient, smaller). Why attempt to equate to the much larger NASA system as if it were on par? J Shultz 03:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. Except that not all parts of ESA are equally efficient. ESA Science for instance is efficient. ESA Human spaceflight (what's left of it) is very unefficient.Hektor 08:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think it's a ridiculous comparison. Besides the fact that it totally one-sided, I don't even see the need for it.  So the question is who is going to rewrite it?  I'd do it, but I don't think I'm enough of an expert on the subject of the two organization's respective budgets to do so.  All I could do is erase most of it. --BarqSimpson
 * I rewrote the section, not sure if that is ok now. Themanwithoutapast 17:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ESA flags
European Space Agency is a multinational organisation and a string of flags is used by them. Yesterday I added that string of flags, which are a part of ESA as Ariane, Giotto and Huygens. A user:Shimgray apparantly saw the history section and said: 'Oh my god!', all those huge flags, lets delete them, it's not a Flag Article! If user:Shimgray had been looking at the recent article instead, he would have noticed that it was a string of small flag. If there is a technical problem with homebuild browsers etc, then let me know! --Necessary Evil 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination
This nomination is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: the history needs to be prose, not links, and the refs need to be in cite standard format. Rlevse 23:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'the history needs to be prose' - not sure what you mean, the history section IS in prose. If you are referring to the list of projects, all of them have rather extensive separate articles, no chance to incorporate them all into the article + 'the refs need to be in cite standard format' - I don't think so, wikipedia does not mandate any standard form for footnotes and this articles has actually correctly formated footnotes Themanwithoutapast 06:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * remedied your history section point (the external link to the pdfs is now at the end of the history section) and converted the few external links that were not 'standard' cites into such Themanwithoutapast 06:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * you list of items in notes section shows up as gibberish, you still have external jumps, the footnotes like number 6 don't follow any standard wiki footnoting scheme, and footnotes go at the end of a sentence, not in the middle.Rlevse 10:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * please direct me to an article on wikipedia's 'standard wiki footnoting scheme' - I can't find it. Thanks. Themanwithoutapast 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'gibberish' - there was a '/' missing in one of the 'ref'. Fixed that. Themanwithoutapast 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'footnotes go at the end of a sentence': 'Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania[6] signed the five-year Plan for European Cooperating State (PECS), that is aimed at preparing the states for full membership.'... please explain how it would make sense to give a cite at the end of this sentence, if the citation only relates to Romania. Themanwithoutapast 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Failed due to non compliance. Rlevse 23:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How to prnounce "ESA"?
How do I pronouce the acronym? Is it a single word, Esa, or do I pronouce the letters individually, E. S. A.? Should there be a pronounciation key at the start of the article? Spebudmak 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is normally pronounced as a single word, similar to NASA. Memberstates have different languages so you will have people in different countries pronounce it differently some will pronounce the E like the English letter 'e', in many other countries the E will be more the 'e' in elephant. Don't think we need a pronounciation key as that would only apply to English-speakers and would not be universal. Themanwithoutapast 07:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info about the pronounciation. As for other languages, the English Wikipedia should indicate how to pronounce things in English.  This is particularly appropriate in this case since the U.K. and Ireland are member states -- there must be some natural pronounciation in those countries.  If native speakers of another language pronounce it differently, I think that should be on the corresponding article in that language.  Thanks again.  Spebudmak 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To any Brits or Irish: Is it usually called 'esa' or 'the E.S.A'?68.148.123.76 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In Britain it's usually pronounced ee-suh, to rhyme with Lisa and greaser. Eve Hall (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Update needed in "own manned launch vehicles" section?
In the last part of this section it says: "Jean-Jacques Dordain has hinted that a decision on ESA's involvement in the project could be made as soon as June, 2006" -- shouldn't this be updated to reflect whatever happened since June, 2006? Or if it should be understood that the next sentence reveals this, maybe it just need a rewrite. I didn't fully catch the meaning of that section anyway. --LasseFolkersen 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold and edit wiki with information already on wiki. There is an article on the CSTS study and on Kliper that has most of the necessary information. Themanwithoutapast 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Budget figures for ESA and comparative space agencies
To the IP who has inserted and modified certain budgetary numbers, these numbers need to be backed up with an external source, it is not enough to just state that "according to Mr.X this is the budget" without providing a specific written source. Themanwithoutapast 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent formatting of figures
Some of the budgets show the American dollar equivalent, some do not. Some don't even make it clear as to what currency is being state. I was thinking about going through and making that clear and showing currencies in Euros and USD values but I wasn't sure if there was a specific convention everyone would like to use so I didn't take over until I heard from everyone. I just think the way the currencies are compared throughout the article is very incosistent and was wondering how everyone thinks we should go about adding some consistency? VroomanGL 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I see it stating both the EUR and USD values is only appropriate when you compare two numbers, but your sources state USD for the one number and EUR for the other (such as in the budget comparison section). Because this article is on the European Space Agency and its budget is measured in EUR, to give a USD value in any other section would be unnessecary and given the ever changing conversion rate also a burden to keep up to date in the future. Themanwithoutapast 12:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just looked over it and considered what you said and it made alot of sense when I thought of it that way. I am glad I didn't change anything without first getting some opinions. VroomanGL 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Spacing Issues
I worked slightly with some spacing issues due to large pictures. I think it would be best to either use less pictures or make them smaller. I didn't want to make too many changes before seeing what other people thought about this. The pictures just seem to protrude into other sections of the articles and cause awkward spacing. VroomanGL 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Director General instead of Administrator?
At the top of the page Jean-Jacque Dordain is referred to as Administrator of ESA, eventhough the ESA-site calls him the Director General of ESA. Shouldn't this be edited?


 * As far as I know the correct title should be Director General (DG for short) but I don't know if that box corresponds to some sort of Wikipedia layout for international organizations... which doesn't seem to exist because for EMSA and EUSC have different boxes... --Thornc (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
I have just protected The Wrong Version (TM) of this page, following an edit war. This is not a endorsement of the current version. Please seek consensus on the talk page over the inclusion of a flagicon (which is, FYI, a very lame thing to edit war over) and if you can't come to conclusion request dispute resolution. In addition, don't call each other names and be civil. --Haemo 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The arguments of Necessary Evil have so far been (in essence):
 * People might think it's an agency of the European Union.
 * Most people believe that the European flag represents the EU only.


 * My (Ssolbergj) arguments:
 * The flag was created by the Council of Europe 32 years before the EU adopted it in a non-legal way as a logo, not a legal flag. It was designed for Europe as a whole.
 * The image file is named Flag of Europe.svg, and before Flag of Europe.svg
 * The flag is placed next to the word Europe (not European Union), a fact that in most editors' heads rules out the possibility of this organisation being an EU Agency.
 * This is INSIDE the article that explains the status of the ESA; Wikipedia shouldn't be designed to 'shield' un-informed from true facts that might be confusing. Argument #3 clearifies everything anyway.
 * The other users of the Space Agency template has the flag to the location in the infobox also. For example the NASA box says . So its reasonalbe to use the European Flag to the word 'Europe' in this article.
 * The most important thing (that Necessary Evil has ignored), is that the European flag is used next to the name of the continent of Europe all over Wikipedia. It's simply a common practice. Does he care why somebody made ?
 * S. Solberg J. 13:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: IT IS NOT MY PURPOSE TO CALL THE EUROPEAN UNION A NAZI ORGANISATION OR ACCUSING GERHARD SCHRÖDER OF BEING A NAZI. MY PURPOSE IS ONLY TO EXPOSE AN ABSURD LOGIC. Look at the image of the former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder. He was born in 1944 when the German national flag included a swastika - hence the flag with a Nazi symbol. Being naive as Ssolbergj one could say that it is in order here. But most people would look at the Nazi flag and think: "I knew he was a Nazi", even with the suffix "Germany"! According to Ssolbergj's logic this would not happen - only brain dead people will conclude things from a quick view at the top of an article. No, everybody will read every single word in the article. I doubt it, people are casual readers and images catch the eye better than words.

My counter arguments to Ssolbergs above numerical arguments:


 * 1) Consider this: "The swastika has been used by Buddhism, Ancient Greeks, Hinduism etc. thousands of years before the Nazi adopted it as a logo". The Nazis have used the swastika so often, that people automatically connect it with Hitler. For comparison; the European Union has used [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]] so often, that people automatically connects it with EU.
 * 2) I’m not a lawyer, what’s your point; e.g. Flag of France vs. French flag?? Please elaborate.
 * 3) Flags are very powerful symbols and most readers are casual. People are skimming pages and colours surrounded by boring text catch the eye. Psychologists have made tests where people remembered images better than words (They were shown pictures of cats, with the word "dog" attached). The advertising agencies know, that text-only advertisement are futile.
 * 4) You can’t expect the readers to chew through the whole article before being enlightened with the truth.
 * 5) NASA is an US-agency; therefore it's reasonable to use stars and stripes in the NASA article.

Do you really think that ESA needs to ride on EU’s coattails?


 * 6) I did an experiment with the EFTA articles. I inserted a minuscule [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]] in the beginning and after TWO hours the Swiss article was reverted; yes it's in Europe, but the flag can be misleading here as it's also used for the EU. No need.
 * The Norway article was reverted after 33 hours, but the Norwegians also got two native wikis to edit; The EU flag should not be used to denote Europe.
 * The Iceland article hasn't been reverted yet, but what; there are only 310.000 Icelanders – to few to patrol the Wikipedia for EU-flags regularly.
 * UPDATE: After almost four days the Flag of Europe was removed from Iceland; GO To Hell

BTW, I don’t know why User:Ssolbergj is so eager to place the European flag in the beginning, he didn’t placed a French flag at France or a Flag of French Guyana border|25px at Kourou. Necessary Evil 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

 * This discussion makes little sense given the evidence provided by ESA ilustrations. Each member state should have its flag listed. Look at this ESA Hermes picture. Lot's of flags. COPYRIGHTED IMAGE REMOVED Put them into the article and lets get over this. Ricnun 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Third party comment
Okay, not strictly taking sides here but I want to make a number of points. SSJ is right when he says it does mean the whole of Europe, and its use by people as far out as the Georgian government and protesters in Belarus show that. However it is heavily connected to the EU yes. I do not believe though that a flag in the infobox would lead anyone to jump to the conclusion it is an EU agency. People do have brains. Second. As it stands for Europe, in theory it would be reasonable to use it. However I have not seen ESA using the EU flag, only their own. But its use in the infobox to show location is not showing it is being used as an ESA symbol, only a symbol of location - which is valid. Third, although ESA is not part of the EU, it is very close and getting closer - working on Galileo and the European Space Policy together. With the policy some movement has been made to bring ESA within the EU structures like WEU - however this has not happened yet. Final point: you are arguing over a small flag icon in the info box showing that it is in Europe, next to the word Europe. To both sides: this isn't a big deal, just location / just a small icon. A page was protected over this? I hope it isn't just this and there is something more but I hope one of you might take the first step to standing down. Not worth it. - J Logan t: 07:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Georgian government and protesters in Belarus are using [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]] and they are not members of the EU. But to many people EU stands for Freedom and Prosperity, so their use of the flag might as well represent a longing for becoming an EU member.
 * ESA is co-operating with EU in the Galileo positioning system, but ESA is also working closely with USA and Russia. Incorporating the flag because ESA is working for EU must follow that the Russian and US flags should be present too. The [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]] has been embraced by the EU so much, that even its inventor the Council of Europe, is using another logo/flag.
 * It is striking that both Ssolbergj and J Logan are members of WikiProject European Union with a lot of EU-stuff editing under their belts . They are experts in the matter (I hope) and to them it is basic knowledge that ESA isn't an EU-agency.
 * Try for a moment to step back and disregard your huge EU knowledge and pretend to be in the shoes of the average reader. They are casual readers and if they see a flag used by EU, their subconsciousness will store "ESA is part of EU". Wikipedians have brains but they are also browsing the pages without reading every word. Often they want a fast answer like: "Is ESA an EU-agency? Well, here is the EU-flag so it must be right!" Necessary Evil 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I never stated it was an agency of the EU, nor do I see it as one. I am trying to give a view of both sides here and I am not supporting either. It is just in the location box yet I do recognise that it is seen as the EU flag. Even ESA says that - when the flew the flag in space . I understand your point on people picking it up but it is right next to the word "Europe" which has a bigger effect than you might thing. I've just done some spot tests and it really does seem to work.
 * I also recognise that Canada is very close to ESA, which also adds to your argument. However you statement on ESA with EU/US/Russia. They are a tad diff. as Russia and ESA are not developing a joint policy, just a co-op. On the Georgia point - statements by that government indicate its use is because it is the flag for all Europe - not just because they want to be in the EU.
 * However I do I see that there isn't much of a point in including it, so it illustrates the word Europe? NE is right in it might mislead, and although I can make the point the affect is minimal, it isn't really worth it. - J Logan t: 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder, since the word Europe is written in the location box, why is a flag necessary? And since ESA themselves regard it as the "European Union flag" as your link shows, why annoy them - especially when they faithfully paint seventeen national flags. Necessary Evil 17:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that this is the LOCATION, and not about which symbols the organisation itself uses. It is a fact that ESA is locatet in Europe. Now "Europe" doesn't explain exactly where this organisation lies, but to stay similar to the NASA infobox and the other space agencies, I think to simply write Europe (=the organisation is located in Europe) would be the best. ESA's relation to this flag is irrelevant. Your impression of the flag is wrong, and you have to realise that Wikipedia shouldn't care about the very first impression a random user might get after looking half a second on the infobox. (which in this case never would be "aha, it's an EU agency", due to the fact that the infobox says  Europe instead of 🇪🇺 European Union) The flag has a wider use, and what's common practice in Wikipedia should apply in ESA's article also.


 * It's interesting that you have placed
 * Wikipedians In Europe
 * on your userpage. - S. Solberg J. 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm from Denmark, Denmark is a member of the EU, so there is NO problem in flying the flag on my userpage, regardless of it is EU's flag or not. I don't dislike the flag - I'm not anti-EU, I know many Danes benefiting from it; my brother studied in Berlin, my mother has retired to Southern France, all that was almost impossible in the old days.
 * My involvement would be the same if some dude from Idaho kept placing details of the city Paris, Idaho in the French capitol Paris' article. It's okay to be proud of a flag, but since ESA isn't displaying it, why displaying it in the article.
 * Scattering EU-flags on the Wikipedia is not getting Norway closer to a membership (which they failed - twice) ;-) Necessary Evil 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the template because you've refused to accept that the flag has any connection with Europe as a whole. If a wikipedian from Belarus chose to use the template, the flag would still be there. The fact that you wrote "since ESA isn't displaying it, why displaying it in the article" tells me that you haven't seen many articles on Wikipedia. The US flag is in the infobox of the Yahoo! article, despite the obvious lack of US flags in their design-profile. Must every Europe-level organisation or company be using the flag before we as editors on wikipedia can tell that the location (a pretty round term) is Europe, with the normal addition of the European flag?


 * I don't care whether you are eurosceptic or not, and I certainly don't care about your stance towards Norwegian membership. - S. Solberg J. 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I owe you an apology regarding my stupid 'Norwegian membership'-comment, you didn't deserve it. Well, as I've mentioned above, Belarusians don't mind getting rid of their dictator and join the EU. Yahoo is an USA corporation, so the Stars and Stripes is okay there. European companies are part of the private sector and are not in jeopardy of being confused as EU-agencies. Taxpayer funded organisations like ESA, CERN and ESO could easily be misinterpreted as EU-agencies. Necessary Evil 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is what we gain from including the flag sufficient to overcome the (very real) potential confusion between Europe and 🇪🇺 European Union? It strikes me that that is the test that we should apply. The answer, to my mind, is "no" - largely because I don't think we gain anything at all. The flag is too strongly associated with the EU, and the word "Europe" in place of "European Union" is not enough to divorce it from that association (particularly since "Europe" is sometimes used to mean "European Union"). I see no compelling argument for its inclusion, so I don't think the flag should return.

On a separate point, could we edit the template to put, say, "primary spaceport" underneath the "headquarters"? I think most if not all of the articles regarding space agencies would benefit, and a 🇬🇫 French Guiana or 🇬🇫 French Guiana might be a useful addition for those of us not up on our small "European" towns. Pfainuk talk 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, the European flag is used next to "Europe" all over wikipedia. The relationship is fundamental and completely common. I have never ever seen the word Europe used to mean the EU in Wikipedia, and to consider such a loose thing from daily speech and tabloids would be against the encyclopedic style. Most people having the intelligence to use Wikipedia would understand that names are written properly in a lexicon. The gain would of course be fair consistency. - S. Solberg J. 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "Europe" is used frequently in infoboxes, all over the place, without a little flag next to it, including on the pages which Necessary Evil altered above. That isn't consistency.  You don't appear to want to put a flag next to Kourou or Paris.  That isn't consistent either.  We consider this "loose thing from daily speech" to be encyclopaedic enough disambiguate to it at Europe (disambiguation).  Here you're you're arguing it's unencycopaedic to not use something.  In any case, the word "Europe" without the flag is fine - it doesn't say "EU".  But the word "Europe" when coupled with that flag could easily imply the EU to someone not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that we distinguish "Europe" and "European Union" templates. Pfainuk talk 10:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

String of flags


ESA is the joint agency of several entities that each has its own flag. Please, any administrator, implement the "string of flags" solution proposed above. Pattern it after the ISS article, which has had a (different) string of flags for ages without any controversy. (sdsds - talk) 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since it is possible in the ISS article, it must be possible here too. I vote for sdsds's suggestion. Necessary Evil 18:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that. Pfainuk talk 18:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Location > Owner
I've changed location (which I implemented in the first place) to owner in the infobox. It's more concrete. Instead of writing just europe, I've added a complete list of countries. It has been successfully used in other articles, and I propose an admin should unfreeze this article. - S. Solberg J. 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No objections (though the protection less than 5 hours to go before it expires of its own accord). FWIW I decided to be bold and implemented my suggestion above. Pfainuk talk 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

request
Reason I came here, when the protection is removed. Could someone remove the link to European (manned european mars mission) or change it to a diff page. European is a disam page now. Thanks. - J Logan t: 07:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

zoom
The article doesn't behave well when viewed at 150%-200% zoom levels with iceweasel :( Is this  'show'  link really needed? Perhaps we could just statically list the countries without the expander link... NerdyNSK 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Member countries and strategic partners
Why is Bosnia-Herzegovina listed but isn't coloured in the map next to the list? --Taraborn 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Programmes?
I noticed there is no mention of the various programmes of the ESA or that structure of the organization.PB666 yap 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Budget
Maybe I missed it while I was rushing through the article, but why does 5% of the ESA's budget comes from third party sources. E.g. Canada?--SelfQ (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC) see ref 32 added to section on cooperation with other organisationsOp. Deo (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The budget numbers in the first few lines seems to be wrong dunno where the reference that is linked got the number from but ESA might know better about there own budget. See --Juxi (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Task Force
User:U5K0 has established a European Space Agency task force under WikiProject Europe: WikiProject Europe/ESA. If you're interested, please sign up and help it get off the ground.- JLogant: 11:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Update tag -- Czech republic became a full member
The Czech republic became a full ESA member on 12 November 2008. Please help updating the section Member Countries and Enlargement. Thanks. Jiri Svoboda (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

ESA MS and ECS map
The map displaying the ESA Member States and ECS countries shows the countries having a General Framework Agreement. But Turkey is missing - in the article Turkey's signature of the Agreement was in 2004. (Actually, according to the ESA homepage, Russia also signed a GFA, but without the aim to be an ECS country, Turkey would like to be an ECS.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumuty (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to whre turkey's GFA is described?U5K0 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOCD0XDYD_index_0.html (ESA signs the Cooperation Agreement with Turkey), and here you can find the scanned original Agreement: https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files/ICIM/icim/uluslararasi_bolgesel_org/Anlasmalar/ESA.pdf which is the same signed with Estonia and Slovenia. Other agreements (also called Cooperation Agreements have been signed with the following states: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Russia, but in their case, these countries do not plan becoming an ESA Member State or ECS state. Turkey has applied the ECS status.) Kumuty (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ESA member states table
I thinnk the current table is unnecesarily conmplicated and unclear. I sugest we change it to the one below. Please leave your thoughts.


 * 1: Founding members drafted the ESA charter which entered into force on 30 October 1980.
 * 2: Acceded members became ESA member states upon signing an accession agreement
 * 3:Canada is an associated member of ESA.

U5K0 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the new table is more lean, but I think we should not entierly trow away the dates of signature, PECS charters, etc. - maybe in some section/article about History of European Space Agency enlargement ... Alinor (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Major update of article
I spent some time updating most of the article and rearranging a few things. The article still needs work, but some of the most problematic areas (e.g. the table with budget allocation etc.) are now updated with 2008/2009 data. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * uploaded and imbedded the budget allocation by programme chart.--U5K0 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the world mar with other EEA members under Enlargement really necesarry?--U5K0 (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I also wanted to delete it, but didn't. Personally I say, let's go ahead and eliminate it. It doesn't add any value. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, and done :D--U5K0 (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the article has been updated and reworked I think it deserves to be graded above a C and have put in a request for input on the WP Space site. --U5K0 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

ESA Budget
The dollar value for the agency's budget has again been changed despite no reason or source for the change, no consistency by changing the Euro value, and more importantly the source already provided contradicts it! I reverted the first time but don't want to get into an edit war, can the IP explain why it is being changed? ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP is turning the euros into dollars by calculating them according to the exchange rate from today (c. $1.3045). This of course is wrong because the average rate for the entire year must be used, not the daily one. Any way the sources is very clear and changing the dollar value is vandalism in my opinion.--Avidius (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah I didn't think about that, yes that is incorrect too. I wouldn't say vandalism, just an assertion that is not sourced, and indeed contradicted by the source already present. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

National agencies
Given that a significant amount of space funding and projects in Europe go through national space agencies (like CNES, DLR, ASI etc) I think it's important to stress that in the lead. This is hit upon further down the article but the lead gives the impression that ESA is the only space agency for these nations which grossly underestimates the scale of European space activity. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ESO & ESA
ESO is independent organization or belong to ESA, is'nt it? 222.252.100.72 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, ESO is a separate organisation. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria's intention to participate in the activities of ESA
In this article, Malta's intention to participate in the activities of ESA is (correctly) mentioned, but not that of Bulgaria's.

Bulgaria's intention to join ESA is clearly expressed by the Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev in the article below (April 2009): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=102652

Several other articles/documents indicating Bulgaria's intention to participate in the activities of ESA also exist: http://www.esa.int/esaHS/SEMD6SLVGJE_business_0.html http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2008-02-17&article=15755 http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Otchet_IKI_2004_2008.pdf (page 18)

I think the article should be modified so that Bulgaria's intention is also mentioned.

CostaDax (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)CostaDax


 * Done. --U5K0 (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. 94.68.187.229 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)CostaDax

Romania now a full member
Romania is now a full member of ESA. Could someone please update the remainung 2 maps. I'd do it myself but don't know how. I tried and tried but just cicn'd find a way to do that. Thanks--U5K0 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

--U5K0 (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Romania is not a full member of ESA; it only signed the ESA Convention. The acts of ratification now have to be ratified by both Romania and the current ESA member states. Only after Romania deposited its instruments of ratification with the government of France will it become a full member of ESA. The changes on the maps need to be reverted. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Skylon???
While Skylon could be an impressive vessel, there is no agreement in place for it to become part of the fleet used by ESA. The inclusion of it in this page is hopeful speculation at best. If no objection is noted in the next week, I'll delete it.

--RedHotIceCube (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. While ESA has awarded the company some money towards developing a test-article of their engine, ESA funds a lot of industry technology programmes which often will have nothing further to do with ESA, it's just seed funding.  There is absolutely no indication whether ESA may support or use Skylon in the future, if it ever happens, and so it is highly inappropriate to describe it at being part of ESA's fleet of launchers or even a potential one at this stage. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Skylon reloaded
Why has this section been reinstated when it was removed for clearly being inappropriate? ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel's Cooperation Agreement
Israel has indeed signed a Cooperation Agreement with ESA; so have several other non-European states (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Russia) "that currently neither plan to integrate as tightly with ESA institutions as Canada, nor envision future membership of ESA". The same is the case with Israel's Agreement. However it is included among the applicant states despite the fact that ESA's announcement about the Cooperation Agreement with Israel does not mention any prospect (or intention) of a possible future membership. I believe that Israel's Cooperation Agreement should be mentioned in the section "Cooperation with other countries and organisations" and not within the applicant states.

CostaDax (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)CostaDax


 * The "Cooperation Agreement" is a specific document, designed as the first stage towards accession. Yes, ESA has signed agreements (often called "agreements on cooperation"/"cooperation agreements" in the media) with the countries you mention but they are not the same documents. Note how the press release has almost entirely the same wording as the press releases for the other candidate countries... ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Cooperation Agreement cannot be viewed as the first step towards accession, that's why so many non-European states have signed such a document. It is true that there are different kinds of Cooperation Agreements. Canada's relation with ESA is through a Cooperation Agreement (yet Canada is an associate member and it is not even a European state). Turkey's Cooperation Agreement will remain valid for a period of five years (unless it is renewed). The first real step towards accession is the ECS Agreement (it just happens that the Cooperation Agreement is a prerequisite for the ECS Agreement). Not all (European or non-European) states who have signed a Cooperation Agreement have any real prospect of signing the ECS Agreement. But, as far as Israel is concerned, I see your point. I carefully examined the press release and I see what you mean about the same wording. I also noticed that it is on the same page with all the EU countries that have signed Cooperation Agreements, ECS Agreements or PECS Charters (unlike Turkey and Ukraine). So, I agree to leave Israel as it is (at least for now and unless new and more enlightening information is revealed). Thank you for having responded to my post. I really appreciated your feedback. CostaDax (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit late but for what it's worth, I've just found an official statement from 2009 by the then Israeli ambassador to the UN stating in so many words that Israel aspires to be a member of ESA. " Similarly, Israel aspires to join the European Space Agency –– ESA –– and is currently negotiating a framework agreement.". ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Applicant states
Please remove Israel from the table of "Applicant States". While it is true that Israel has a cooperation agreement with ESA it is not formally an applicant state for membership - ESA has cooperation agreements with many states, e.g. Argentina, which are not in the list. The table misleadingly includes Israel among the newer EU states which are expected to join ESA in the coming years and already have a closer cooperation with ESA (e.g. observer status in governing bodies) - not the case of Israel. Raistlin1 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a source for this information? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to look up a few sections you'll see this has already been discussed and in fact I just recently provided rather conclusive evidence from a senior Israeli official that it is an "Applicant State"... ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I added that reference to the article. Hopefully we're done with this now. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Romania as a member
I realise that Romaninas' accession to the ESA convention only comes into force after the instrument of ratification is depositted in Paris and that this is supposed to happen around the end of 2011. I am just wondering if anyone happens to know more precisely when this is to occur? I know that the thing has been retified already... so, how long does it take to deliver the damn thing? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 23:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

More needed
This article really needs sections about all the budget categories which aren't currently covered. Right now there's only a section about launchers and human spaceflight. That's a lot of work. Any takers? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 10:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction of accession dates
From here --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. CMD (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted that. The dates given in the wikitable are those for the accession to the ESA Convention, not for the precursor organizations ELDO and ESRO. Besides, the date of 22 December 2010 for the accession of Romania is an obvious mistake, as Romania only signed the accession agreement on 20 January 2011 and completed ratification on 22 December 2011 (sources are from the ESA website). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely accession to the predecessors is far more important than the creation of a convention? Much like how membership to the EU is discussed in terms of the Coal and Steel Community onwards. There's nothing in the article which explains the 1975/1980 discrepancy at the moment. What about the other dates that were slightly different? CMD (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather indifferent with regard to including ELDO/ESRO dates, but I think it's better to discuss this first on the talk page. The main reason I reverted, though, is that at least one date is irrefutably incorrect (that of Romania). That sheds doubt on the correctness of the other dates mentioned on the website. We should sort that out first before editing this article. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They also missed the 15th member and listed 16th twice (an obvious typo). I bet the Romanian one is a typo too, somewhat earlier in the production of that page, where 2011 was somehow turned into 2010 and then placed under 2010 because of this. Either way, it seems our current 23 December 2011 for Romania is a day off. CMD (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems so indeed. About 1975/1980. The ESA convention was signed in May 1975 and ESA functioned de facto from that date. In 1980, the convention was ratified by the members and ESA was established de jure (source). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems I've caused a great deal of trouble here. The bottom line for me is that all the accession dates other than the founding members need to be sourced. In my opinion the dates for the founding members should stay as is - the coming into force of the ESA convention. ELDO and ESRO are separate organisations with different member lists and have their own articles. As for the dates of the acceded members, I think there should be consistency in terms of providing the dates when membership comes into force - the latest possible date. Do we have a source which goes back beyond the accession of Greece? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trouble? Clearly you haven't seen the bits of wikipedia that I have! If you think that we should have the founding members at the time of the ESA's creation, why don't we list them as 1975? The article goes on about 1975, and we have a source which says it de facto functioned from that point. The 1980 date can be explained in text. I'd agree with the latest possible date for newest members. CMD (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for the 1980 date is that I think we need to have consistency in the table. If we give the new member states the date at which the ESA convention went into force for them, then the same should extend to the founders as well. I don't like the de facto date because a de facto argument could be made for the ew members as well. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 15:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that. The page you linked to at the very start of this didn't even bother to mention 1980, but lists the later dates for later addition. There's a clear difference between founders and later members, especially as the founders were simply the members of a previous group. They're in at the start. New members however, have the entry process. CMD (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True. However, this is what the footnotes are for. Differences between groups can be briefly described there, but if we have a column in a table, it should be populated by homogeneous information. I think that de facto dates would be problematic since there is no reason that I can see to then also apply it to new members. That would cause confusion and as far as I can see would not add much value to the table. Details about the foundation and history can be put in the prose. The table is there for ease and clarity. Some information is inevitably lost because of that. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't apply for new members because it'd be completely different. For the original members, they just went from a new organisation to this. They were simply members by default. New members obviously aren't in by default. The footnote would be better addressing 1980, especially as the whole article focuses much more on 1975. As it stands, our article presents an organisation that began in 1975 but didn't have members till 1980. That seems to me to be a great confusion, and there would be far more ease and clarity if we simply used 1975, the way their official website does. CMD (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It can't be different. It's in the same table and should therefore show the same category of data. We can change the category to something like "ESA Convention (final ratification)" but it has to be the dates of analogous events. In this case the 1980 would go away and be replaced by dates between 1976 and 1980 as per page 9. 1975 is the year the ESA Convention was opened for signature and was signed by the founders. This is exactly analagous to new members signing the convention. We either use the dates of signature or the dates of deposition of the instruments of ratification. We cannot do a little of each. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 10:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Membership
So what will happen with Israeli application if only european states can join? And what about Greenland's membership? is it confirmed in sources? As u may know Greenland made a big step towards independence and gained  a lot of self rule in a recent referendum and im not sure if the membership of Danmark automatically makes Greenland a member too? --FitJock87 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ESA memberstates
Poland 20th ESA Memberstate

According to the ESA statment in the link below, Poland is member state of ESA as of the 13th of september. Poland accedes to ESA Convention Rik ISS-fan (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

PS. fuse all the memberstate discussions into one, I think that's much more convenient.


 * Incorrect, please read the article again. Specifically,


 * The Government of Poland plans to conclude the ratification process at the earliest and once the ratification instrument is deposited with the Government of France, Poland will become officially the 20th ESA Member State and will participate in the ESA Ministerial Council in November 2012 as a full Member State.


 * What happened on September 13th was that Poland signed the Accession Agreements officially declaring its intention to be a full member of ESA. It is not a member state until the legal documents have been transferred, a process that generally takes months. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, a good example of this process is the previous new member, Romania. Romania acceded to the ESA Convention on 20 January 2011, however it did not become an official member until 22 December 2011 or a full 11 months later. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

2013 Contributions are full of errors
Some of these errors are miscopying of the source document (such as the intermediate total of about 2900 and 72.1% instead of about 3100 and 72.6%), but others are in the source document - for example Ireland's 17.3 million is given as 0.4% (correctly if a percent of the grand total), while most of the countries below Ireland are given 0.5%. France and Germany's contributions are given as a higher % than the EU's larger contribution (though it's possible that the former are percentages of the intermediate total). I haven't checked how many other errors there might be. I'm not sure what we should do to try to sort out the mess. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Czech Space Office (CSO) does NOT represent Czech space program
Czech Space Office, despite its best efforts to appear that way, does not represent Czech space program and does not represent Czech Republic in ESA. It is a private company (see Czech business register). Until a dedicated governmental agency is created, that task belongs to Czech Ministry of Transport (see their webpage for space activites, Czech Space Portal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.212.4 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

German - an official ESA langauge?
I don't know whether German is an (equally) official language of ESA and whether it "needs" to be displayed as such. I only know, that: I just reverted an edit because no source was given and the edit disrupted the article's layout. -- Rfassbind (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the citation next to official languages in the infobox is dead.
 * info on the web is confusing. This source says that there are only two official languages.

Estonia's Space Agency
Hi, since Estonia is an ESA member sinde February 4 2015, an article about its agency should be created: Enterprise Estonia. Anyone who could do so? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on European Space Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090523104757/http://pecs.esa.int:80/node/24 to http://pecs.esa.int/node/24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Slovenia
The article is outdated, Slovenia is an associate member of ESA as well, since 2016, like Canada. Hektor (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on European Space Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asi.it/en/flash_en/accessing/vega
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/08dreamchaser/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122114906/http://www.esa.int/esapub/sp/sp1300/sp1300EN1.pdf to http://www.esa.int/esapub/sp/sp1300/sp1300EN1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Greece
Thoughts on whether/how a potential Grexit from ESA should be included? I ask this because I believe 3 years of no contribution is noteworthy for the article. Endrū Hejs (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Rosetta mission. The Rosetta probe and it's Philae lander were an important milestone in ESA history but do not yet appear (as of January 7th, 2016) in this article. It should be named in the History/Later activities section as a great achivment.
 * why you believe that, can you explain it better?.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on European Space Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510110232/http://www.mvzt.gov.si/nc/en/splosno/cns/news/article/94/6845/049772920e/ to http://www.mvzt.gov.si/nc/en/splosno/cns/news/article/94/6845/049772920e/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303225015/http://www.esa.int/esapub/br/br268/br268.pdf to http://www.esa.int/esapub/br/br268/br268.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asi.it/en/flash_en/accessing/vega
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/08dreamchaser/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316203007/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/index_en.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714230606/http://apps.eui.eu/HAEU/OralHistory/EN/ESAOH.asp to http://apps.eui.eu/HAEU/OralHistory/EN/ESAOH.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on European Space Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050706132534/http://www.jaxa.jp//news_topics/interview/vol4/index_e.html to http://www.jaxa.jp/news_topics/interview/vol4/index_e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806025700/http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-fr/3349-sa-mission.php to http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-fr/3349-sa-mission.php
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130215192730/http://www.cyprus-mail.com/node/34057 to http://www.cyprus-mail.com/node/34057
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208204803/http://www.space.co.uk/DataBank/Transcripts/20080329DavidSouthwood/tabid/441/Default.aspx to http://www.space.co.uk/DataBank/Transcripts/20080329DavidSouthwood/tabid/441/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

First content made for Wikipedia, by ESA, in space!


The first ever content made in space specifically for Wikipedia was uploaded to Commons today, and is used on Paolo Nespoli. See Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind for how this happened. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Space Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6PF64NuGb?url=http://www.asi.it/en/flash_en/accessing/vega to http://www.asi.it/en/flash_en/accessing/vega
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201130730/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/057-42862-322-11-47-909-20081120STO42665-2008-17-11-2008/default_en.htm to http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/057-42862-322-11-47-909-20081120STO42665-2008-17-11-2008/default_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Bulgaria signs the PECS Charter
Hello, everybody. I'm not sure how to edit the Wiki page myself, so I'll just write it down here and someone more qualified can edit it. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Bulgaria has signed the PECS charter on the 4th of February 2016. Government source (in Bulgarian): https://www.mi.government.bg/bg/news/balgariya-podpisa-harta-s-evropeiskata-kosmicheska-agenciya-sporazumenieto-za-evropeiska-kooperirashta-da-2463.html

Another source, in English: http://www.cibal.eu/digital-library/17-civilization/science/5136-bulgaria-european-space-agency-signed-pecs-charter

If somebody could please add the information to Wiki's articles on the ESA and its enlargement, that'd be deeply appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.7.206 (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:European Space Agency for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:European Space Agency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:European Space Agency until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * LL-Q1860 (eng)-Poslovitch-European Space Agency.wav (discussion)
 * LL-Q188 (deu)-Poslovitch-Europäische Weltraumorganisation.wav (discussion)

New logo
ESA has rebranded. We should put the new logo somewhere and the old logo in history section. New logo of ESA. Hektor (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

why are the headquarters shown on hover instead of the logo?
just feel like it'd make more sense when hovering on the ESA for it to show the logo, not sure how to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbirdxd (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)