- Email: [email protected]
A new paradigm for international cooperation in space exploration
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Space Policy 21 (2005) 97–99 www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol
Viewpoint
A new paradigm for international cooperation in space exploration$ Peggy Finarellia, Ian Prykeb, a
North American Operations, International Space University, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 206, Washington, DC 20024, USA Center for Aerospace Policy Research, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 3C6, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
b
Available online 18 April 2005
Abstract In announcing a new Vision for the US space program, President George Bush committed the USA to ‘‘a long-term human and robotic program to explore the solar system’’, via a return to the Moon, leading to exploration of Mars and other destinations. He also stated that other nations would be invited to join the vision. Many other nations have, or are developing, ‘exploration visions’ of their own. The potential for international cooperation therefore exists, both at the vision and program/project levels. This paper, based on Working Group discussions as part of an AIAA space cooperation workshop,1 presents an approach for maximizing the return on all global investments in space exploration. It proposes an international coordination mechanism through which all these various national activities could be integrated into an inherently global enterprise for space exploration, a ‘virtual program of programs’. Within the context of the coordination, individual activities would utilize the full range of cooperative mechanisms for implementation. A significant benefit of this mode of conducting cooperation is that it would not require the negotiation of complex overarching international agreements as a precondition for initiating international activity. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
$
This paper is a slightly edited version of an address given at the International Space University symposium, ‘Civil, Commercial and Security Space: What will drive the Next Decade?’, held in Strasbourg, France, 30 November–3 December 2004. Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Finarelli), [email protected] (I. Pryke). 1 The workshop was held in Anchorage, Alaska, 2–6 May 2004 and the Working Group discussed ‘International Cooperation in the Context of the Implementation of a Space Exploration Vision’. It took as its mandate the following statement: ‘‘In announcing his new Vision for space exploration, President Bush stated that ‘We‘ll invite other nations to share the challenge and the opportunities of this new era of discovery.’ Having characterized the Vision as ‘a journey, not a race’ he then called ‘on other nations to join us on this journey, in a spirit of cooperation and friendship.’ Other nations also have specific exploration missions or comprehensive exploration agendas (e.g. ESA’s Aurora program) as an integral part of their overall space strategies. Based on this background, the Working Group provided an appropriate independent forum in which to discuss the modalities of defining and implementing an exploration vision as a coordinated international endeavor.’’ The full report of the Workshop (Report of the AIAA 7th workshop on international space cooperation, working group on ‘‘International Cooperation in the Context of a Space Exploration Vision’’, May 3–6, 2004), containing details of the output of this Working Group and two others addressing different topics, can be found on the AIAA’s web site at www.aiaa.org, under ‘International Outreach’. 0265-9646/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2005.02.006
1. Introduction The long-term prospects for space exploration, and for international cooperation to achieve it, have been fundamentally transformed by the US President’s Vision for space exploration [1,2]. The space exploration programs currently emerging in the US and Europe exhibit a number of similarities in form and objective. Both are based on an open-ended vision of a sustained long-term effort starting with the Moon, then Mars. Furthermore, both foresee programs developed through incremental, adaptive decision-making with no major new funding available. In addition, other countries such as Canada, China, India, Japan and Russia also have Moon/Mars exploration plans. With capable and focused space exploration programs in Europe and elsewhere, the USA has a number of potential partners in the pursuit of its Vision. It is to be recognized, however, that there will be more asymmetry in human program cooperative ventures than in robotic programs, given the differing levels of experience.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 98
P. Finarelli, I. Pryke / Space Policy 21 (2005) 97–99
2. The need for a new paradigm Because the US ‘Moon, Mars and beyond’ Vision will necessitate a complex, long-term, open-ended ‘‘program,’’ it is impossible to predict at this early stage the totality of projects that will comprise it over time. Approaching international cooperation in this program in the traditional manner, i.e. reaching detailed agreement on the roles and responsibilities of all partners at the outset, will therefore be virtually impossible. Nonetheless, there are clear political, technological and economic benefits to aligning the multiple and varied national exploration efforts. There is thus a need for a new paradigm that will enable broad international coordination to optimize the global effort. At the same time the new paradigm should allow individual projects to be developed in their own time, with specific partners and cooperative mechanisms that best fit the specific tasks and circumstances.
3. A ‘virtual program of programs’ The premise underlying the paradigm shift is that all national space exploration activities (‘programs’), taken together, comprise an inherently global enterprise for space exploration (a ‘virtual program’). Of course, to integrate the set of national exploration programs into a virtual program, international coordination is essential. An ‘International Space Exploration Coordination Council’ is therefore proposed for the purpose of facilitating this coordination. Rather than trying to develop a cooperative concept for exploration as a whole, the virtual program would be comprised of a coordinated set of individual activities, each activity employing the most sensible international arrangement, as determined by the specific partners involved. All partners would not be involved in all activities, and all activities would not necessarily involve international partners. However, all would be considered elements in the coordinated international exploration venture.
also ideally promote the sustainability and continuity of the long-term global vision, so as to survive changes in various national commitments and possible ‘‘transformational events’’ such as major changes in the international political situation, the discovery of life elsewhere, etc. To accomplish these goals, Council members would:
exchange information about national programs and plans; discuss virtual architecture for achieving best mutual benefit; minimize gaps and overlaps among national programs; enhance critical path redundancies; develop implementation support mechanisms; promote standardization, interoperability, compatibility (e.g., technical interfaces, data formats, etc.); enhance networks of scientific and engineering communities.
Although the processes of the Council would need to be developed by its stakeholders, regular meetings at agency senior management levels would definitely be required. Membership would be open to any party actively involved in space exploration activities as long as that agency was committed to a synergistic, long-term virtual program of programs and willing to share information on its national program plans to that end. The extended duration of the exploration effort ensures that, not only will various players change their commitments to exploration over time, but also new players will enter the scene. To engage selected new parties, a separate wider consultation activity may be desired.
5. Cooperative mechanisms (the toolkit) Over the years, a wide variety of bilateral and multilateral international cooperative mechanisms has been developed and used within the space community. Examples include:
4. The ‘Council’
Council deliberations would encompass all members’ exploration plans and activities, both human and robotic. The Council would operate flexibly over the long term, providing its members a forum for communication, consultation and coordination, leading ideally to an alignment of national exploration visions and programs. The results of its deliberations would not be binding or controlling, but guiding.2 The Council would 2
It is realized that using the term ‘‘Council’’ could be misconstrued in some parts of the world, where it carries a strong connotation of
coordination of national projects, as among the Comet Halley missions and in the COSPAS/SARSAT program; program enhancement avoiding critical path involvement, as in the original Space Station Freedom; interdependence within a program, as in the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope; industrial management of government-agreed ele-
(footnote continued) ‘‘high level bureaucracy’’. This is not the intention. The Council is seen very much as an informal forum, especially in its initial stage.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Finarelli, I. Pryke / Space Policy 21 (2005) 97–99
ments, as in Boeing’s management of the Italian Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules for the International Space Station; government-enabled industrial teaming as in the Joint Strike Fighter.
This rich ‘toolkit’ can be drawn upon to select the most effective approach for each specific element within the globally coordinated virtual program. In addition, traditional approaches can be updated and new innovative approaches can be tried. As always with international cooperation, it would be up to the specific potential partners (not the broader membership of the Council) to decide and negotiate the terms of cooperation for specific activities. It is extremely important to note that in this new concept for a virtual program comprising the global totality of coordinated national exploration programs, a specific activity need not be ‘international’ in its participants in order to be an integral part of the international virtual program of programs.
99
essentially open-ended nature of the undertaking and its very broad scope, a new approach to international cooperation is called for, one that offers flexibility in its implementation and operation while providing for coordinated planning among all interested parties. Such an approach has been described here.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the AIAA for sponsoring the 7th international Space Cooperation Workshop in 2004. They are indebted to all of the other members of the Working Group for their participation in the interesting and productive discussions that resulted in the concept outlined above. Particular thanks go to the two Co-Chairs: Klaus Becher, Managing Partner, Knowledge & Analysis LLP, UK, and Charles Kennel, Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Chair of the NASA Advisory Council, USA, for the manner in which they focussed the activities of the group to the creation of a useful and worthwhile product.
6. Conclusions Numerous nations have expressed an intention to undertake space exploration to a greater or lesser extent. It is in the interests of these nations to cooperate in the planning and implementation of a coherent overall exploration strategy, in order to maximize the return generated by the totality of their investments. Given the
References [1] Report of the AIAA Seventh Workshop on International Space Cooperation, Working Group on ‘‘International Cooperation in the Context of a Space Exploration Vision’’, May 3–6, 2004. [2] White House Fact Sheet: ‘‘A Renewed Spirit of Discovery’’, January 14, 2004.
Space Policy 21 (2005) 97–99 www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol
Viewpoint
A new paradigm for international cooperation in space exploration$ Peggy Finarellia, Ian Prykeb, a
North American Operations, International Space University, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 206, Washington, DC 20024, USA Center for Aerospace Policy Research, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 3C6, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
b
Available online 18 April 2005
Abstract In announcing a new Vision for the US space program, President George Bush committed the USA to ‘‘a long-term human and robotic program to explore the solar system’’, via a return to the Moon, leading to exploration of Mars and other destinations. He also stated that other nations would be invited to join the vision. Many other nations have, or are developing, ‘exploration visions’ of their own. The potential for international cooperation therefore exists, both at the vision and program/project levels. This paper, based on Working Group discussions as part of an AIAA space cooperation workshop,1 presents an approach for maximizing the return on all global investments in space exploration. It proposes an international coordination mechanism through which all these various national activities could be integrated into an inherently global enterprise for space exploration, a ‘virtual program of programs’. Within the context of the coordination, individual activities would utilize the full range of cooperative mechanisms for implementation. A significant benefit of this mode of conducting cooperation is that it would not require the negotiation of complex overarching international agreements as a precondition for initiating international activity. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
$
This paper is a slightly edited version of an address given at the International Space University symposium, ‘Civil, Commercial and Security Space: What will drive the Next Decade?’, held in Strasbourg, France, 30 November–3 December 2004. Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Finarelli), [email protected] (I. Pryke). 1 The workshop was held in Anchorage, Alaska, 2–6 May 2004 and the Working Group discussed ‘International Cooperation in the Context of the Implementation of a Space Exploration Vision’. It took as its mandate the following statement: ‘‘In announcing his new Vision for space exploration, President Bush stated that ‘We‘ll invite other nations to share the challenge and the opportunities of this new era of discovery.’ Having characterized the Vision as ‘a journey, not a race’ he then called ‘on other nations to join us on this journey, in a spirit of cooperation and friendship.’ Other nations also have specific exploration missions or comprehensive exploration agendas (e.g. ESA’s Aurora program) as an integral part of their overall space strategies. Based on this background, the Working Group provided an appropriate independent forum in which to discuss the modalities of defining and implementing an exploration vision as a coordinated international endeavor.’’ The full report of the Workshop (Report of the AIAA 7th workshop on international space cooperation, working group on ‘‘International Cooperation in the Context of a Space Exploration Vision’’, May 3–6, 2004), containing details of the output of this Working Group and two others addressing different topics, can be found on the AIAA’s web site at www.aiaa.org, under ‘International Outreach’. 0265-9646/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2005.02.006
1. Introduction The long-term prospects for space exploration, and for international cooperation to achieve it, have been fundamentally transformed by the US President’s Vision for space exploration [1,2]. The space exploration programs currently emerging in the US and Europe exhibit a number of similarities in form and objective. Both are based on an open-ended vision of a sustained long-term effort starting with the Moon, then Mars. Furthermore, both foresee programs developed through incremental, adaptive decision-making with no major new funding available. In addition, other countries such as Canada, China, India, Japan and Russia also have Moon/Mars exploration plans. With capable and focused space exploration programs in Europe and elsewhere, the USA has a number of potential partners in the pursuit of its Vision. It is to be recognized, however, that there will be more asymmetry in human program cooperative ventures than in robotic programs, given the differing levels of experience.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 98
P. Finarelli, I. Pryke / Space Policy 21 (2005) 97–99
2. The need for a new paradigm Because the US ‘Moon, Mars and beyond’ Vision will necessitate a complex, long-term, open-ended ‘‘program,’’ it is impossible to predict at this early stage the totality of projects that will comprise it over time. Approaching international cooperation in this program in the traditional manner, i.e. reaching detailed agreement on the roles and responsibilities of all partners at the outset, will therefore be virtually impossible. Nonetheless, there are clear political, technological and economic benefits to aligning the multiple and varied national exploration efforts. There is thus a need for a new paradigm that will enable broad international coordination to optimize the global effort. At the same time the new paradigm should allow individual projects to be developed in their own time, with specific partners and cooperative mechanisms that best fit the specific tasks and circumstances.
3. A ‘virtual program of programs’ The premise underlying the paradigm shift is that all national space exploration activities (‘programs’), taken together, comprise an inherently global enterprise for space exploration (a ‘virtual program’). Of course, to integrate the set of national exploration programs into a virtual program, international coordination is essential. An ‘International Space Exploration Coordination Council’ is therefore proposed for the purpose of facilitating this coordination. Rather than trying to develop a cooperative concept for exploration as a whole, the virtual program would be comprised of a coordinated set of individual activities, each activity employing the most sensible international arrangement, as determined by the specific partners involved. All partners would not be involved in all activities, and all activities would not necessarily involve international partners. However, all would be considered elements in the coordinated international exploration venture.
also ideally promote the sustainability and continuity of the long-term global vision, so as to survive changes in various national commitments and possible ‘‘transformational events’’ such as major changes in the international political situation, the discovery of life elsewhere, etc. To accomplish these goals, Council members would:
exchange information about national programs and plans; discuss virtual architecture for achieving best mutual benefit; minimize gaps and overlaps among national programs; enhance critical path redundancies; develop implementation support mechanisms; promote standardization, interoperability, compatibility (e.g., technical interfaces, data formats, etc.); enhance networks of scientific and engineering communities.
Although the processes of the Council would need to be developed by its stakeholders, regular meetings at agency senior management levels would definitely be required. Membership would be open to any party actively involved in space exploration activities as long as that agency was committed to a synergistic, long-term virtual program of programs and willing to share information on its national program plans to that end. The extended duration of the exploration effort ensures that, not only will various players change their commitments to exploration over time, but also new players will enter the scene. To engage selected new parties, a separate wider consultation activity may be desired.
5. Cooperative mechanisms (the toolkit) Over the years, a wide variety of bilateral and multilateral international cooperative mechanisms has been developed and used within the space community. Examples include:
4. The ‘Council’
Council deliberations would encompass all members’ exploration plans and activities, both human and robotic. The Council would operate flexibly over the long term, providing its members a forum for communication, consultation and coordination, leading ideally to an alignment of national exploration visions and programs. The results of its deliberations would not be binding or controlling, but guiding.2 The Council would 2
It is realized that using the term ‘‘Council’’ could be misconstrued in some parts of the world, where it carries a strong connotation of
coordination of national projects, as among the Comet Halley missions and in the COSPAS/SARSAT program; program enhancement avoiding critical path involvement, as in the original Space Station Freedom; interdependence within a program, as in the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope; industrial management of government-agreed ele-
(footnote continued) ‘‘high level bureaucracy’’. This is not the intention. The Council is seen very much as an informal forum, especially in its initial stage.
ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Finarelli, I. Pryke / Space Policy 21 (2005) 97–99
ments, as in Boeing’s management of the Italian Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules for the International Space Station; government-enabled industrial teaming as in the Joint Strike Fighter.
This rich ‘toolkit’ can be drawn upon to select the most effective approach for each specific element within the globally coordinated virtual program. In addition, traditional approaches can be updated and new innovative approaches can be tried. As always with international cooperation, it would be up to the specific potential partners (not the broader membership of the Council) to decide and negotiate the terms of cooperation for specific activities. It is extremely important to note that in this new concept for a virtual program comprising the global totality of coordinated national exploration programs, a specific activity need not be ‘international’ in its participants in order to be an integral part of the international virtual program of programs.
99
essentially open-ended nature of the undertaking and its very broad scope, a new approach to international cooperation is called for, one that offers flexibility in its implementation and operation while providing for coordinated planning among all interested parties. Such an approach has been described here.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the AIAA for sponsoring the 7th international Space Cooperation Workshop in 2004. They are indebted to all of the other members of the Working Group for their participation in the interesting and productive discussions that resulted in the concept outlined above. Particular thanks go to the two Co-Chairs: Klaus Becher, Managing Partner, Knowledge & Analysis LLP, UK, and Charles Kennel, Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Chair of the NASA Advisory Council, USA, for the manner in which they focussed the activities of the group to the creation of a useful and worthwhile product.
6. Conclusions Numerous nations have expressed an intention to undertake space exploration to a greater or lesser extent. It is in the interests of these nations to cooperate in the planning and implementation of a coherent overall exploration strategy, in order to maximize the return generated by the totality of their investments. Given the
References [1] Report of the AIAA Seventh Workshop on International Space Cooperation, Working Group on ‘‘International Cooperation in the Context of a Space Exploration Vision’’, May 3–6, 2004. [2] White House Fact Sheet: ‘‘A Renewed Spirit of Discovery’’, January 14, 2004.