Another government-funded overpriced manned launch system. And one from a system that has institutionalized pork-barrel spending, since it's an explicit requirement that each country in ESA get work commensurate with its contribution. Sure, that'll work.

This will just duplicate capabilities of NASA, COTS and Russia. Better to invent something that really makes human spaceflight safer and more comfortable.

Sounds like Kliper all over again, with the mention of Russia's involvement. Do a study, see if they should give money, finally decide against it. I doubt if anything will come of it.

That reminds me, how far behind is the ESA's "Jules Verne" ATV behind schedule at this point?

Well, if they really just adapted a Soyuz to ride on an Ariane, they'd have another launch option available without squandering too much money on development. But the whole point of ESA is to squander money, ("We cannot have a squander gap!") so it probably won't go down like that.

Rand:

How do you know the CSTS is overpriced? Based on the phrase "many hundreds of millions of euros"? Ain't that the COTS finalists price range? Are they overpriced too?

Fred:

The Kliper proposal was built along "Russian hardware for Euro money" line, no wonder it was rejected. The CSTS proposal indicates (so far) the proponents learnt the lesson of Kliper.

As for ATV delay, it matches the overall ISS building delay, doesn't it?

Jim:

Interesting choice of words, when ESA spends money od development it's "squandering" according to you. How do you call spending money by NASA then?
Or JAXA for example?