AN: This is my first real attempt at any kind of AH. So sorry if parts seem a little...off. I'd greatly appreciate any constructive advice you are able to provide.
As I'm sure you're aware. We're approaching the 17th anniversary of the first - albiet unmanned - launch of the ESA Aries Manned Spacecraft - a relatively lightweight three-crew, 9,000Kg, tri-module craft that resembles the Russian Soyuz Manned Spacecraft. A system that, combined with the Ariane 4* - which happens to be the first launch vehicle to utilise CCBs (Common Core Boosters) and Propellant Cross-Feed - made possible a flexible family of modular systems that allowed for an immense array of missions to be undertaken. Of which the Mars Sample Return Mission, via ISPP, is currently the shining example within their robotic mission front. One which has suffered only one, non-fatal - failure within it's life. And allowed for the continuation of ISS Asembly and Crew ferrying following the Columbia Disaster and subsequent suspension of US manned launches. Which - perhaps surprisingly at the time of selection - is of UK Manufacture.
The question I ask of you is this. What would have been the case had it not been built? Either because it's chief rival, Hermes the mini-shuttle, had been selected instead. Or if neither were selected.
Would the ESA still hold a commanding - if not dominant - position withing the space-faring nations?
Would the ESA be stuck primarily as a commercial launch provider? Though it still has quite a number of orders OTL at 30-32%.
And would the UK have been able to experience a revival of sorts withing its then-beleagered manufacturing base? Even if it's only in top-end technological fields these days.
* Ariane 4: Modular Mid-Heavy Payload Launch Vehicle.
Payload to LEO (225Km, 51.6 degree inclination, manned) - 9,080Kg
Payload to LEO (225Km, 5.2 degree inclination, unmanned, Heavy) - 40,450Kg
Payload to TLI - 15,000Kg Max
Payload to TMI/TVI - 13,100Kg Max