- Email: [email protected]
Improving the effectiveness of international collaboration in space science
Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
Improving the effectiveness of international collaboration in space science J.L. Culhanea, J.C. Wormsb,* a
Department of Space and Climate Physics, Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NT, UK b Ecole Nationale Supe!rieure de Physique de Strasbourg, Parc d’Innovation, Boulevard Se!bastien Brandt, F-67400 Illkirch, France
Abstract From the start of the 20th century, a strong tradition of collaboration has developed in the physical sciences. World War II and the following period changed this situation with a quickening of the pace of application. Thus, while basic research continues to benefit from collaboration among scientists worldwide, the increasingly complex background in which science evolves, through higher implementation costs and more difficult approval processes, renders collaboration among nations ever more pressing. Space science, with its comparatively high access cost but large fundamental importance, substantial public appeal and outstanding ability to motivate young people, shares this need. This article focuses on a recent ESSC-ESF study undertaken to improve the effectiveness of such cooperative efforts. Related findings and recommendations are presented along with a proposed operational structure for their implementation. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction From the beginning of the Space Age in 1957, the need to consider international collaboration in the exploration and exploitation of space was recognized. Even before that time the plans laid since 1952 by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) to establish the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in place of the former International Polar Year included studies that would be conducted using sub-orbital rockets with scientific instruments in the upper atmosphere. Later, in 1954, ICSU adopted a resolution calling for the launch of artificial satellites during the IGY to help map the surface of the Earth. At that time the USSR and the USA had both accepted this challenge [1]. While the initial motivation was mainly politically driven in view of the Cold War situation that prevailed at the time, the strong world tradition of international collaboration in the fundamental sciences quickly began to make itself felt. In 1958 COSPAR was established in The Hague, which was also the seat of ICSU, and its first years of existence *Corresponding author. Tel.: +33-390-244-649; fax: +33-390-244650. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.L. Culhane), jean-claude. [email protected], [email protected] (J.C. Worms).
saw a change from what was described by H.C. van de Hulst as ‘Level 0’ (the parties are not on talking terms) to ‘Level 1’ (exchange of information on accomplishments, but not on plans or failures) [2]. Thus many of the world’s key space science missions in the period after 1960 were collaborative in nature. With the passage of time and the increasing maturity of the subject, the motivations for engaging in collaborative endeavours in space and the mechanisms for their realization inevitably became more complex. However, the imperatives to advance a broad and growing range of science disciplines coupled with the high cost of access to and operation in space strengthened the will of those involvedFboth space agencies and practising scientistsFto engage in collaborative programmes. As far as ESA was concerned international collaboration started as a result of privileged relations with NASA and later opened to the USSR, Japan and other spacefaring countries. This led in particular to the setting up of the Inter-Agency Consultative Group for Space Science (comprising ESA, the Russian IKI, NASA and the Japanese ISAS), which achieved international recognition in 1986 thanks to its ability to coordinate an ambitious set of missions to comet Halley [3]. We will discuss further in this article how the IACG has evolved in the intervening period.
0265-9646/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 5 - 9 6 4 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 8 - 5
180
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
The world space science community now finds itself at crossroads. Access to and exploitation of space is no longer purely politically driven. Thus in the USA in the last year of the twentieth century, the volume of commercial space activity overtook for the first time that of governmentally supported programmes. The owners of the International Space Station are already laying out plans for its commercialisation. In this new environment science must continue to justify its vital importance as a cultural activity of the first rank and in developed nations this aspect has indeed long been recognized. However, it is most striking that the community can also point to its seminal role in aspects of space exploitation ranging from telecommunications and navigation to the study of Earth climate change. In addition, the space sciences have demonstrated a substantial public appeal and an outstanding ability to motivate young people to take up careers in the natural and engineering sciences. Recognizing the importance of international collaboration, the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) of the European Science Foundation (ESF) and the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the US National Research Council (NRC) published in 1998 a joint study on US-European Collaboration in Space Science [4]. This work examined the history of past joint activity in classical space science, Earth observation and research in microgravity; it also emphasized the importance of continued future joint activities. Excerpts from that report were published in Space Policy [5]. In 1999, and following a joint approach by ESSC and SSB, this study was extended to include the role of Japan’s space scientists in collaborative activities [6]. More recently discussions with Chinese scientists have begun which aim at investigating possible avenues of cooperation. While these studies have initially involved the USA and Europe and later Japan, the importance of scientific collaboration among the world’s spacefaring nations has been strikingly emphasized as a result. At ESA’s request a more focused study was undertaken by the ESSC in 2000. It sought to (i) broaden the base of international collaboration; (ii) identify fruitful areas for such collaboration, e.g. large astronomical missions and solar system studies involving multiple spacecraft; and (iii) propose a coordinating body involving the major world space agencies which could address collaboration on large missions and coordination of the more focused smaller-scale activities in space through the harmonization of their programmes. This study has benefited greatly from the participation of individuals nominated by the SSB and by the presence of an observer from the Japanese Space Research Committee (SRC). Preparatory meetings and discussions culminated in April 2000 during the EGS General Assembly held in Nice, France, where an international
hearing was held. Speakers in the four main areas covered by NASA’s and ESA’s ‘roadmaps’ (Astronomy, Fundamental Physics, Planetary Exploration, Heliosphere and Sun) presented the situation of their disciplines, offered assessments of the agencies’ roadmaps and proposed findings and improved ways of cooperation. The present article is based in part on the findings of this study [7].
2. The present situation The report on US-European Collaboration in Space Science examined several past and ongoing missions and assessed the importance of international collaboration for large-scale exploration projects. Various recommendations for the scientific communities and space agencies were presented in this study and will hopefully serve as guidelines for future cooperative missions. In NASA the present tendency to favour ‘better, faster and cheaper’ spacecraft for planetary missions, while being well adapted to certain types of eventoriented missions (e.g. exploration of small bodies in the solar system), can probably not, on the other hand, deal adequately with major programmes where (i) more than a single mission is required for success and (ii) a very broad community of scientists is concerned (e.g. astronomy, geosciences, life sciences, space physics, planetary sciences). These situations are bound to occur in promising areas, e.g. future planetary exploration missions, the search for planets around other stars. Emerging fields such as exo/astrobiology, for which scientists in Europe and in the USA have started to coordinate their research strategy, would also benefit from a world-wide cooperative approach. Supporting this statement is a finding from an SSB-NRC report published in August 2000 [8], which states that ‘‘y A mixed portfolio of mission sizes is crucial in virtually all Earth and space science disciplines to accomplish the various research objectivesy’’. NASA’s more recent emphasis on ‘smaller’ planetary missions with the larger ones being needed for major objectives does indeed follow this finding. A more recent and growing concern, at least in the academic world, is the impact of the evolving implementation of export control regulations on the conduct of international space cooperation. These socalled International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) rules control the transfer of items on the US munitions list, which covers all spacecraft components and, more broadly, all related technical data. Fundamental research is normally exempt from ITAR rules. In the space area, however, fundamental research is intrinsically linked to technology and is thus subject to these rules through dependence on the exchange of technology and of foreign post-doctoral
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
students, for example. It is not clear at present whether progress is actually being made to ease this difficult situation. ESA on the other hand finds itself in a position where the so-called ‘Cornerstone’ elements of the Horizons 2000 programme, decided at a time of financial stability, represent a radically different approach to the one followed by NASA. Although a token of European leadership in these specific areas, these large programmes became more difficult to achieve after the Toulouse 1995 and Brussels 1999 ministerial decisions in the context of continuing financial erosion. This misalignment of strategies in Europe and in the USA, added to the very significant budget differences between the two agencies1, are major causes for concern about reaching a state of effective cooperation in space science. In recent years groups of US, Japanese and European scientists have proposed the constitution of international joint study teams to reflect on these issues and on possible efficient solutions, and to issue subsequent recommendations and advice to the space agencies. In the area of planetary exploration for instance, a major joint approach to ‘sample the solar system’ would be the equivalent of the NGST initiative in the field of astronomy. In summary, the current system is having an increasingly damaging effect upon cooperation and needs to evolve to account for this new situation.
3. Recommendations for the future 3.1. Thematic findings Findings and recommendations were identified in all four thematic areas studied during the hearing [7, pp. 7– 10], namely Astronomy, Fundamental Physics, Planetary Exploration, Heliosphere and Sun. The scope of this article does not permit us to present those in detail but we would like to shed light on some of the more salient issues. First of all the findings in the astronomy area show that a mix of mission sizes is important: in addition to small survey and focused missions, major advances in astronomy in the new millenium will require large facility-class observatories with global access. A prominent example of this is provided by the NGST. In the case of smaller missions coordination and harmonisation is mandatory.
1 NASA will have spent in 2001 almost 5 times more than the total European expenditures on space science, i.e. ESA and national expenditures; when comparing only the ESA budget for space science this ratio becomes higher than 7.
181
In fundamental physics coordination issues also arise given that similar missions will need to operate simultaneously (e.g. atomic clocks) and coordination of their efforts appears essential. Likewise in the case of technology demonstration missions such as ST-3 and SMART 2 for LISA, collaboration should also be pursued. In the field of planetary exploration some significant redundancy is already present in the roadmaps of both agencies (e.g. cometary missions and Mercury exploration), but so far without the existence of a real possibility of cross-fertilization. In this context an indepth reassessment of the current strategies for the exploration of Mars and Mercury is considered essential. Sample return missions also fall within this category as they can involve a series of activities and items that could usefully be approached on a joint basis, e.g. selection of landing sites, communication infrastructure, data and sample management. Other smaller-scale or technology-driven missions would benefit substantially from institutional coordination. Finally in the case of Heliosphere and Sun, it was thought that space plasma physics will in the future merge into planetary, solar and heliospheric physics, and should thus be recognized as a vital element of missions in these fields. Constellations will be important for magnetospheric response studies but fewer spacecraft with wider complementarity of instrumentation may often be more appropriate. It was recognized that enabling technologies such as solar electric propulsion (SEP), solar sails, spacecraft autonomy, specialist data compression techniques and Radioisotope Thermal Generators (RTG) are all being developed more aggressively in the USA than in Europe. In addition to these thematic findings, general issues common to all fields were identified. We present these findings below. 3.2. General findings It was made absolutely clear that the current role of space agencies in laying out foundations for future space science programmes is not questioned. Agencies and their respective scientific advisory bodies must continue to construct scientific roadmaps, and to select and prioritize missions. Following the definition of these strategic roadmaps by the agencies, however, a rational and systematic approach to the harmonization of these plans should be undertaken on a regular basis. In order to achieve this a new operational implementation scheme is required and the scientific community is ready to play its part in the process. Such a scheme is proposed in the following section. In order to achieve the best possible coherence of programmes in Europe, the harmonization of European
182
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
national space science planning with ESA science roadmaps is strongly encouraged, including data exploitation issues. Although an officially recognized role of ESA, this harmonization is more often than not found lacking. This is clearly an area where the USA has an advantage with respect to Europe. Thus it is incumbent on the latter to evolve towards a more effective approach to optimizing national programmes in relation to ESA activities. Despite this call for enhanced cooperation, it is nevertheless extremely important for the vitality of the scientific communities involved and for obvious technological development reasons to maintain a sharp but managed scientific competition at the instrument selection level, while respecting the strategic objectives of the other partners. Finally, it is most regrettably the case that the current application of ITAR in the USA is having an increasingly detrimental impact on international scientific collaboration and is particularly damaging in the space science area, where global collaboration is crucial. It is thus important that the nature of this impact and possible ameliorations be discussed and understood by the space agencies in order to make helpful suggestions to the relevant governmental bodies.
3.3. Proposal for an operational structure The findings identified above served as a basis for proposing a new operational structure for inter-agency cooperation. In order to adapt the presently existing structures of discussion/coordination between space agencies we propose the establishment of an ‘Inter-Agency Scientific Collaboration Working Group’ (IA-SCWG), which would include responsible agency executives from ESA, NASA, Japan, Russia, etc. The aim of this IASCWG would be, on a regular basis, to provide a global forum for discussing collaboration on large missions such as space observatories, planetary exploration missions, or data exploitation. Furthermore the role of IA-SCWG would be to enable coordination of ‘focussed’ science missions, e.g. NASA’s ‘Explorer’ missions, ESA’s ‘Flexi’ missions and national missions within the existing roadmaps. The necessary input to the IA-SCWG would be provided by thematic panels. This structure would in particular enable a ‘bottom-up’ scientific input. In addition to the agency representation, scientific membership in this working group could be decided after consultation and advice by independent scientific advisory bodies (SSB, ESSC, SRC) whose role is to advise space agencies and nations on space science. In order for the working group to be effective, an annual meeting cycle would seem to be appropriate.
4. Recent developments for the IACG As noted above, the IACG was originally set up to coordinate the suite of missions to comet Halley in 1986. This endeavour involved all four participating agencies, at varying levels. The IACG remained in existence after the missions to comet Halley were completed and subsequently played a substantial role in coordinating the International Solar Terrestrial Physics Programme (ISTP), which included missions from all four Agencies, e.g. SOHO, Cluster, WIND, Geotail, Interball. Other working groups were set up under the IACG umbrella to deal with coordination in areas such as planetary exploration and data acquisition. However, the IACG focus was always in the operational sphere and did not address issues relating to the definition and planning of future missions which could benefit from an interagency collaborative approach. Following the completion of the ESSC/ESF position paper [7], it became clear that an IACG with revised terms of reference could provide an enhanced capability to the participating agencies and could begin to respond in part to the recommendations presented in the paper. In particular it could help in identifying future mission areas for which inter-agency cooperation would result in major scientific themes being addressed in a more costeffective manner by the world community. Accordingly the IACG Executive Secretary was invited to draft terms of reference for a revised IACG that would provide an effective forum for the discussion of future mission strategies, particularly in the areas above. The Terms of Reference, which are reproduced in Appendix A, were discussed at a meeting of the IACG in La Jolla, California, in September 2000. The current member agencies, ESA, ISAS, NASA and the Russian space agency (RASA), agreed the terms, which represent a valuable step towards enabling the discussion and planning of future international space science activities. While each agency retains complete control of its own programme, the terms of reference allow the establishment of inter-agency Task Groups and Working Groups under the auspices of the IACG. Several Task Groups and Working Groups were discussed and their establishment agreed. The resulting structure is shown in Fig. 1. Task Groups are expected to provide input to the Agency Heads of Delegation on specific strategic planning or technical issues. Tasks could include advice on, e.g. the harmonization of the agencies’ scientific roadmaps, division of responsibilities in specific sectors and opportunities for cooperation in selected areas. The groups will include members appointed by all the IACG member agencies and, should the need arise, broadened participation by experts or representatives of other agencies can be arranged. Three Task Groups were created at the La Jolla meeting and these are indicated in Fig. 1. All three have been charged with examining the
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
183
Fig. 1. New organisational structure of the Inter-Agency Consultative Group for Space Science (IACG), with task groups and working groups, as decided at the IACG meeting held in La Jolla, California, on 26–27 September 2000.
possibilities for inter-agency cooperation in their respective fields and with bringing recommendations to the next meeting of the IACG in September 2001. Working Groups, which already existed in the previous version of the IACG, are expected to conduct inter-agency coordination in the implementation and/or operation of missions in agreed discipline areas. The working group structure is also shown in Fig. 1. One of the groups deals with operational matters that relate to mission interoperability and the optimum use of the agencies’ assets in the tracking, commanding and data acquisition fields. The group concerned with Solar System exploration will address coordination in two principal areas; exploration of small bodies on behalf of all four agencies and the programme of Mercury exploration on behalf of the three agencies involved (ESA, ISAS and NASA). In the special cases where agencies beyond the four IACG members are involved, the establishment of Independent Working Groups may be decided on a case-by-case basis. Two examples that are currently active are also indicated in Fig. 1. These are the International Mars Exploration Working Group (IMEWG) and the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG). While these groups are selfregulating and independent, they allow scientific and
operational coherence in areas where very broad participation has become the norm. Thus it is clear that in its new form, the IACG represents a significant channel for the harmonization of international space science programmes. While in no way affecting the rights and duties of individual space agencies and their scientific advisory bodies to construct programme roadmaps and to select and prioritise missions, it provides a forum where rational long-term planning can be conducted in a situation where the growing cost and complexity of space science mandates an approach that is demonstrably efficient and costeffective.
5. Conclusion From the beginning of the last century, a strong tradition of collaboration has developed in the physical sciences. In the early part of the century this collective approach was exercised by small numbers of individuals in universities. The world war of 1939–45 changed the situation through the application of the recently discovered fundamental physical laws in a host of militarily driven situations, e.g. nuclear weapons development. Following the war, the pace of application
184
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
quickened with spectacularly successful examples being provided by the semiconductor industry and by the widespread use of digital techniques. While the basic physical sciences continue to develop with the potential to benefit all of humanity, this happens increasingly against a background of higher implementation costs and correspondingly greater difficulty in bringing ground-breaking programmes to approval and fruition. Thus the need for international collaboration among the developed nations grows ever more pressing. The spacebased sciences are of crucial fundamental importance but have large demands which mandate a collective will among the developed nations to pool their resources. In a time of great opportunity and popular support for the advancement of space science, we hope that the considerations developed in this article, and the proposed operational structures, will help promote more effective international collaboration and a more cost-effective approach to the realization of our scientific goals.
member Agencies and on areas of inter-agency coordination. The IACG seeks, through inter-agency coordination, to enhance the scientific output of specific and approved space science missions and research in areas of shared interest. The IACG proceeds by consensus among the member Agencies. Agreements are implemented by the member Heads independently within their own organizations. The IACG may sponsor colloquia and workshops that are of direct value for the attainment of its objectives. The IACG will continue its activity for as long as deemed useful by the member Agencies. A.3. Disciplines covered by the IACG The IACG will cover all disciplines of space science of common interest to its members Agencies. A.4. Membership
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Johan Bleeker, Director General of SRON, member of the ESSC and Chair of the ESPSP panel of the ESSC; Claude Canizares, former Chair of the SSB; and Vittorio Manno, Executive Secretary of the IACG, for providing their very useful advice, inputs and comments. The very hard and challenging work and contributions from the participants to the study ad hoc group and to the international hearing (N. Bigelow, A. Gim!enez, J. Grindlay, E. Gru. n, G. Haerendel, M. Jacob, S. Kahn, P. Masson, A. Nishida, D. Paige, T. Owen, J.-L. Puget, S. Solanki, A. Title, M.J.L. Turner, S. Vitale, J.C. Zarnecki) are gratefully acknowledged.
IACG member Agencies are: * *
*
*
A.5. Organization In order to ensure the success of the IACG a straightforward but informal organizational framework is essential: *
Appendix A. IACG TERMS OF REFERENCE A.1. Purpose The purpose of the IACG is to promote among its member agencies coordination of future planning and implementation of specific approved space science missions. The IACG provides an international forum in which space science activities are discussed on an informal basis among representatives of the member agencies.
A.2. Policies The IACG provides a forum for policy discussion and informal consultations on the strategic planning of its
The European Space Agency (ESA). The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), Japan. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Russian Space Agency (RSA).
*
*
*
Schedule of meetings: Regular meetings of the IACG take place on an annual basis and rotate from country to country. Special meetings are convened as required. Chairmanship: Chairmanship of the IACG is transferred from agency to agency with the responsibility for hosting the regular meetings. Chairmanship for special meetings will be treated ad hoc. Level of participation: Agency delegations consist of the Heads of the member Agencies science programmes (H/D) each supported by one (alternatively two, depending on the tractanda) senior staff and by the IACG Executive Secretary. A few key members of each Agency’s respective scientific community can be included. Minutes: Meeting summaries with a list of agreements and action items for the following year will be established by the Executive Secretary for approval by the Heads.
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186 *
Member Agencies shall nominate a ‘‘contact point’’ for IACG related matters and communications with the Executive Secretary.
A.6. Establishment and operations of working groups and task groups Groups may be established by unanimous consent of the member Heads, upon proposal by one or more sponsoring Heads. 1. Task groups are created to provide input to the H/D on specific strategic planning or technical issues. Tasks could include advice on: harmonization of the agencies scientific roadmaps; division of responsibilities among the agencies in specific sectors; opportunities for inter agency cooperation in selected areas; the establishment or dissolution of specific Working Groups; etc. Task groups shall include members appointed by all member Agencies. Should the need arise for broadening international participation other experts or representatives of other agencies may be included. The normal duration of a task group is one or two years. 2. Working groups are created to conduct inter-agency coordination in the implementation and/or operations of missions of the member Agencies in agreed discipline areas.Their brief can relate to scientific coordination, such as campaigns, or to cross-disciplinary technical aspects (data archives, interoperability, etc). Membership of Working groups will include representatives of the member agencies appointed by the relevant Head in consultation with the Group Chairperson. Membership may be kept flexible to meet the evolution of the subject matter and the availability of the persons. The membership should reflect the eminently technical task of the working group and include mission and project scientists. The duration of Working Groups may by necessity extend over several years depending on the evolution of the programme within their mandate. Each working group and task group shall have a specific written charter detailing the purpose and product of its activities and expected termination date; this charter will be agreed to unanimously by the Heads. Task and Working Groups will have a chair, and optionally a co-chair or deputy-chair, agreed on unanimously by the member Heads. To minimize travel time and expense, the Groups will meet during the year at existing scientific or technical conferences attended by their membership but as a general rule distinct from the IACG annual H/D meeting. Task and Working groups will submit an annual report. The report may be transmitted in writing or may, if requested, be presented directly at the H/D annual meeting by the Chair (or one designee). The report shall
185
cover (1) the activities of the past year, (2) products or conclusions developed, and (3) plans for the next year’s activities. Working groups and Task groups may be terminated at any time by unanimous consent of the Heads. A particular situation arises whenever, in a specific discipline area, more Agencies, other than the IACG members, have strong interest and willingness to provide a substantial contribution. [Two such cases arose in the past, namely in the Mars Exploration and Lunar Exploration areas. In both cases the IACG sponsored wide-open Workshops (organized by ESA in Wiesbaden, 1993 and in Hamburg, 1995) that led respectively to the establishment of the two independent working groups: IMEWG (with the additional participation of, inter alia, CNES, ASI and DARA), and ILEWG (with a total of ten agencies). Both groups report formally to COSPAR and are self-regulating.] In similar circumstances, the IACG may in future decide to follow the same pattern and agree to foster the establishment of, and provide initial legitimacy to, Independent Working Groups that include the non-IACG agencies.
A.7. Executive Secretary 1. An Executive Secretary is designated for the organization of the IACG annual meetings and dayto-day work between meetings. Selection of the Executive Secretary requires unanimous consent of the member Heads. 2. Duties include: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Maintain a close link with ‘‘contact points’’ designated by each member agency. Distribute information on forthcoming annual IACG meetings. Establish IACG meeting agendas in consultation with member agencies. Prepare meeting summaries and track H/D action items, as requested. Maintain working group and task group charters, schedules, and membership lists. Collect and distribute working group and task group reports to member agencies. Poll Heads for agreement on issues between IACG annual meetings, as required. Participate as required in essential IACG related events. Serve as contact point with the outside community.
The Executive Secretary is supported by a Secretariat situated at the International Space Science Institute (ISSI) in Bern, Switzerland.
186
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
References [1] Launius RD. NASA: A history of the US civil space program. Florida: Krieger, ISBN 0-89464-878-0, 1994. p. 21. [2] Van de Hulst HC. COSPAR’s first years: a personal view. In: Haerendel G, Grzedzielski S, Cavallo G, Battrick B, editors. 40 years of COSPAR, r COSPAR/ESA, BR-135, 1998. p. 5–13. [3] Bonnet RM, Manno V. International cooperation in spaceFthe example of the European space agency. Harvard: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-45835-4, 1994. p. 82. [4] US–European Collaboration in Space Science. ESF–NRC Joint Report, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1998, ISBN 0-309-05984-4.
[5] US–European Collaboration in Space Science. NRC-ESF, Space Policy 1998;14:215–221. [6] US–European–Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation. SRC/ JSC, SSB/NRC and ESSC/ESF Joint Report, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999. [7] ESSC-ESF. Future of International Collaboration in Space Science. An ESSC-ESF Position Paper, European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, 2000, ISBN 2-912049-19-9. [8] SSB-NRC. Assessment of mission size trade-offs for NASA’s earth and space science missions. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2000, ISBN 0-309-06976-9.
Improving the effectiveness of international collaboration in space science J.L. Culhanea, J.C. Wormsb,* a
Department of Space and Climate Physics, Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NT, UK b Ecole Nationale Supe!rieure de Physique de Strasbourg, Parc d’Innovation, Boulevard Se!bastien Brandt, F-67400 Illkirch, France
Abstract From the start of the 20th century, a strong tradition of collaboration has developed in the physical sciences. World War II and the following period changed this situation with a quickening of the pace of application. Thus, while basic research continues to benefit from collaboration among scientists worldwide, the increasingly complex background in which science evolves, through higher implementation costs and more difficult approval processes, renders collaboration among nations ever more pressing. Space science, with its comparatively high access cost but large fundamental importance, substantial public appeal and outstanding ability to motivate young people, shares this need. This article focuses on a recent ESSC-ESF study undertaken to improve the effectiveness of such cooperative efforts. Related findings and recommendations are presented along with a proposed operational structure for their implementation. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction From the beginning of the Space Age in 1957, the need to consider international collaboration in the exploration and exploitation of space was recognized. Even before that time the plans laid since 1952 by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) to establish the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in place of the former International Polar Year included studies that would be conducted using sub-orbital rockets with scientific instruments in the upper atmosphere. Later, in 1954, ICSU adopted a resolution calling for the launch of artificial satellites during the IGY to help map the surface of the Earth. At that time the USSR and the USA had both accepted this challenge [1]. While the initial motivation was mainly politically driven in view of the Cold War situation that prevailed at the time, the strong world tradition of international collaboration in the fundamental sciences quickly began to make itself felt. In 1958 COSPAR was established in The Hague, which was also the seat of ICSU, and its first years of existence *Corresponding author. Tel.: +33-390-244-649; fax: +33-390-244650. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.L. Culhane), jean-claude. [email protected], [email protected] (J.C. Worms).
saw a change from what was described by H.C. van de Hulst as ‘Level 0’ (the parties are not on talking terms) to ‘Level 1’ (exchange of information on accomplishments, but not on plans or failures) [2]. Thus many of the world’s key space science missions in the period after 1960 were collaborative in nature. With the passage of time and the increasing maturity of the subject, the motivations for engaging in collaborative endeavours in space and the mechanisms for their realization inevitably became more complex. However, the imperatives to advance a broad and growing range of science disciplines coupled with the high cost of access to and operation in space strengthened the will of those involvedFboth space agencies and practising scientistsFto engage in collaborative programmes. As far as ESA was concerned international collaboration started as a result of privileged relations with NASA and later opened to the USSR, Japan and other spacefaring countries. This led in particular to the setting up of the Inter-Agency Consultative Group for Space Science (comprising ESA, the Russian IKI, NASA and the Japanese ISAS), which achieved international recognition in 1986 thanks to its ability to coordinate an ambitious set of missions to comet Halley [3]. We will discuss further in this article how the IACG has evolved in the intervening period.
0265-9646/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 5 - 9 6 4 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 8 - 5
180
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
The world space science community now finds itself at crossroads. Access to and exploitation of space is no longer purely politically driven. Thus in the USA in the last year of the twentieth century, the volume of commercial space activity overtook for the first time that of governmentally supported programmes. The owners of the International Space Station are already laying out plans for its commercialisation. In this new environment science must continue to justify its vital importance as a cultural activity of the first rank and in developed nations this aspect has indeed long been recognized. However, it is most striking that the community can also point to its seminal role in aspects of space exploitation ranging from telecommunications and navigation to the study of Earth climate change. In addition, the space sciences have demonstrated a substantial public appeal and an outstanding ability to motivate young people to take up careers in the natural and engineering sciences. Recognizing the importance of international collaboration, the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) of the European Science Foundation (ESF) and the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the US National Research Council (NRC) published in 1998 a joint study on US-European Collaboration in Space Science [4]. This work examined the history of past joint activity in classical space science, Earth observation and research in microgravity; it also emphasized the importance of continued future joint activities. Excerpts from that report were published in Space Policy [5]. In 1999, and following a joint approach by ESSC and SSB, this study was extended to include the role of Japan’s space scientists in collaborative activities [6]. More recently discussions with Chinese scientists have begun which aim at investigating possible avenues of cooperation. While these studies have initially involved the USA and Europe and later Japan, the importance of scientific collaboration among the world’s spacefaring nations has been strikingly emphasized as a result. At ESA’s request a more focused study was undertaken by the ESSC in 2000. It sought to (i) broaden the base of international collaboration; (ii) identify fruitful areas for such collaboration, e.g. large astronomical missions and solar system studies involving multiple spacecraft; and (iii) propose a coordinating body involving the major world space agencies which could address collaboration on large missions and coordination of the more focused smaller-scale activities in space through the harmonization of their programmes. This study has benefited greatly from the participation of individuals nominated by the SSB and by the presence of an observer from the Japanese Space Research Committee (SRC). Preparatory meetings and discussions culminated in April 2000 during the EGS General Assembly held in Nice, France, where an international
hearing was held. Speakers in the four main areas covered by NASA’s and ESA’s ‘roadmaps’ (Astronomy, Fundamental Physics, Planetary Exploration, Heliosphere and Sun) presented the situation of their disciplines, offered assessments of the agencies’ roadmaps and proposed findings and improved ways of cooperation. The present article is based in part on the findings of this study [7].
2. The present situation The report on US-European Collaboration in Space Science examined several past and ongoing missions and assessed the importance of international collaboration for large-scale exploration projects. Various recommendations for the scientific communities and space agencies were presented in this study and will hopefully serve as guidelines for future cooperative missions. In NASA the present tendency to favour ‘better, faster and cheaper’ spacecraft for planetary missions, while being well adapted to certain types of eventoriented missions (e.g. exploration of small bodies in the solar system), can probably not, on the other hand, deal adequately with major programmes where (i) more than a single mission is required for success and (ii) a very broad community of scientists is concerned (e.g. astronomy, geosciences, life sciences, space physics, planetary sciences). These situations are bound to occur in promising areas, e.g. future planetary exploration missions, the search for planets around other stars. Emerging fields such as exo/astrobiology, for which scientists in Europe and in the USA have started to coordinate their research strategy, would also benefit from a world-wide cooperative approach. Supporting this statement is a finding from an SSB-NRC report published in August 2000 [8], which states that ‘‘y A mixed portfolio of mission sizes is crucial in virtually all Earth and space science disciplines to accomplish the various research objectivesy’’. NASA’s more recent emphasis on ‘smaller’ planetary missions with the larger ones being needed for major objectives does indeed follow this finding. A more recent and growing concern, at least in the academic world, is the impact of the evolving implementation of export control regulations on the conduct of international space cooperation. These socalled International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) rules control the transfer of items on the US munitions list, which covers all spacecraft components and, more broadly, all related technical data. Fundamental research is normally exempt from ITAR rules. In the space area, however, fundamental research is intrinsically linked to technology and is thus subject to these rules through dependence on the exchange of technology and of foreign post-doctoral
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
students, for example. It is not clear at present whether progress is actually being made to ease this difficult situation. ESA on the other hand finds itself in a position where the so-called ‘Cornerstone’ elements of the Horizons 2000 programme, decided at a time of financial stability, represent a radically different approach to the one followed by NASA. Although a token of European leadership in these specific areas, these large programmes became more difficult to achieve after the Toulouse 1995 and Brussels 1999 ministerial decisions in the context of continuing financial erosion. This misalignment of strategies in Europe and in the USA, added to the very significant budget differences between the two agencies1, are major causes for concern about reaching a state of effective cooperation in space science. In recent years groups of US, Japanese and European scientists have proposed the constitution of international joint study teams to reflect on these issues and on possible efficient solutions, and to issue subsequent recommendations and advice to the space agencies. In the area of planetary exploration for instance, a major joint approach to ‘sample the solar system’ would be the equivalent of the NGST initiative in the field of astronomy. In summary, the current system is having an increasingly damaging effect upon cooperation and needs to evolve to account for this new situation.
3. Recommendations for the future 3.1. Thematic findings Findings and recommendations were identified in all four thematic areas studied during the hearing [7, pp. 7– 10], namely Astronomy, Fundamental Physics, Planetary Exploration, Heliosphere and Sun. The scope of this article does not permit us to present those in detail but we would like to shed light on some of the more salient issues. First of all the findings in the astronomy area show that a mix of mission sizes is important: in addition to small survey and focused missions, major advances in astronomy in the new millenium will require large facility-class observatories with global access. A prominent example of this is provided by the NGST. In the case of smaller missions coordination and harmonisation is mandatory.
1 NASA will have spent in 2001 almost 5 times more than the total European expenditures on space science, i.e. ESA and national expenditures; when comparing only the ESA budget for space science this ratio becomes higher than 7.
181
In fundamental physics coordination issues also arise given that similar missions will need to operate simultaneously (e.g. atomic clocks) and coordination of their efforts appears essential. Likewise in the case of technology demonstration missions such as ST-3 and SMART 2 for LISA, collaboration should also be pursued. In the field of planetary exploration some significant redundancy is already present in the roadmaps of both agencies (e.g. cometary missions and Mercury exploration), but so far without the existence of a real possibility of cross-fertilization. In this context an indepth reassessment of the current strategies for the exploration of Mars and Mercury is considered essential. Sample return missions also fall within this category as they can involve a series of activities and items that could usefully be approached on a joint basis, e.g. selection of landing sites, communication infrastructure, data and sample management. Other smaller-scale or technology-driven missions would benefit substantially from institutional coordination. Finally in the case of Heliosphere and Sun, it was thought that space plasma physics will in the future merge into planetary, solar and heliospheric physics, and should thus be recognized as a vital element of missions in these fields. Constellations will be important for magnetospheric response studies but fewer spacecraft with wider complementarity of instrumentation may often be more appropriate. It was recognized that enabling technologies such as solar electric propulsion (SEP), solar sails, spacecraft autonomy, specialist data compression techniques and Radioisotope Thermal Generators (RTG) are all being developed more aggressively in the USA than in Europe. In addition to these thematic findings, general issues common to all fields were identified. We present these findings below. 3.2. General findings It was made absolutely clear that the current role of space agencies in laying out foundations for future space science programmes is not questioned. Agencies and their respective scientific advisory bodies must continue to construct scientific roadmaps, and to select and prioritize missions. Following the definition of these strategic roadmaps by the agencies, however, a rational and systematic approach to the harmonization of these plans should be undertaken on a regular basis. In order to achieve this a new operational implementation scheme is required and the scientific community is ready to play its part in the process. Such a scheme is proposed in the following section. In order to achieve the best possible coherence of programmes in Europe, the harmonization of European
182
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
national space science planning with ESA science roadmaps is strongly encouraged, including data exploitation issues. Although an officially recognized role of ESA, this harmonization is more often than not found lacking. This is clearly an area where the USA has an advantage with respect to Europe. Thus it is incumbent on the latter to evolve towards a more effective approach to optimizing national programmes in relation to ESA activities. Despite this call for enhanced cooperation, it is nevertheless extremely important for the vitality of the scientific communities involved and for obvious technological development reasons to maintain a sharp but managed scientific competition at the instrument selection level, while respecting the strategic objectives of the other partners. Finally, it is most regrettably the case that the current application of ITAR in the USA is having an increasingly detrimental impact on international scientific collaboration and is particularly damaging in the space science area, where global collaboration is crucial. It is thus important that the nature of this impact and possible ameliorations be discussed and understood by the space agencies in order to make helpful suggestions to the relevant governmental bodies.
3.3. Proposal for an operational structure The findings identified above served as a basis for proposing a new operational structure for inter-agency cooperation. In order to adapt the presently existing structures of discussion/coordination between space agencies we propose the establishment of an ‘Inter-Agency Scientific Collaboration Working Group’ (IA-SCWG), which would include responsible agency executives from ESA, NASA, Japan, Russia, etc. The aim of this IASCWG would be, on a regular basis, to provide a global forum for discussing collaboration on large missions such as space observatories, planetary exploration missions, or data exploitation. Furthermore the role of IA-SCWG would be to enable coordination of ‘focussed’ science missions, e.g. NASA’s ‘Explorer’ missions, ESA’s ‘Flexi’ missions and national missions within the existing roadmaps. The necessary input to the IA-SCWG would be provided by thematic panels. This structure would in particular enable a ‘bottom-up’ scientific input. In addition to the agency representation, scientific membership in this working group could be decided after consultation and advice by independent scientific advisory bodies (SSB, ESSC, SRC) whose role is to advise space agencies and nations on space science. In order for the working group to be effective, an annual meeting cycle would seem to be appropriate.
4. Recent developments for the IACG As noted above, the IACG was originally set up to coordinate the suite of missions to comet Halley in 1986. This endeavour involved all four participating agencies, at varying levels. The IACG remained in existence after the missions to comet Halley were completed and subsequently played a substantial role in coordinating the International Solar Terrestrial Physics Programme (ISTP), which included missions from all four Agencies, e.g. SOHO, Cluster, WIND, Geotail, Interball. Other working groups were set up under the IACG umbrella to deal with coordination in areas such as planetary exploration and data acquisition. However, the IACG focus was always in the operational sphere and did not address issues relating to the definition and planning of future missions which could benefit from an interagency collaborative approach. Following the completion of the ESSC/ESF position paper [7], it became clear that an IACG with revised terms of reference could provide an enhanced capability to the participating agencies and could begin to respond in part to the recommendations presented in the paper. In particular it could help in identifying future mission areas for which inter-agency cooperation would result in major scientific themes being addressed in a more costeffective manner by the world community. Accordingly the IACG Executive Secretary was invited to draft terms of reference for a revised IACG that would provide an effective forum for the discussion of future mission strategies, particularly in the areas above. The Terms of Reference, which are reproduced in Appendix A, were discussed at a meeting of the IACG in La Jolla, California, in September 2000. The current member agencies, ESA, ISAS, NASA and the Russian space agency (RASA), agreed the terms, which represent a valuable step towards enabling the discussion and planning of future international space science activities. While each agency retains complete control of its own programme, the terms of reference allow the establishment of inter-agency Task Groups and Working Groups under the auspices of the IACG. Several Task Groups and Working Groups were discussed and their establishment agreed. The resulting structure is shown in Fig. 1. Task Groups are expected to provide input to the Agency Heads of Delegation on specific strategic planning or technical issues. Tasks could include advice on, e.g. the harmonization of the agencies’ scientific roadmaps, division of responsibilities in specific sectors and opportunities for cooperation in selected areas. The groups will include members appointed by all the IACG member agencies and, should the need arise, broadened participation by experts or representatives of other agencies can be arranged. Three Task Groups were created at the La Jolla meeting and these are indicated in Fig. 1. All three have been charged with examining the
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
183
Fig. 1. New organisational structure of the Inter-Agency Consultative Group for Space Science (IACG), with task groups and working groups, as decided at the IACG meeting held in La Jolla, California, on 26–27 September 2000.
possibilities for inter-agency cooperation in their respective fields and with bringing recommendations to the next meeting of the IACG in September 2001. Working Groups, which already existed in the previous version of the IACG, are expected to conduct inter-agency coordination in the implementation and/or operation of missions in agreed discipline areas. The working group structure is also shown in Fig. 1. One of the groups deals with operational matters that relate to mission interoperability and the optimum use of the agencies’ assets in the tracking, commanding and data acquisition fields. The group concerned with Solar System exploration will address coordination in two principal areas; exploration of small bodies on behalf of all four agencies and the programme of Mercury exploration on behalf of the three agencies involved (ESA, ISAS and NASA). In the special cases where agencies beyond the four IACG members are involved, the establishment of Independent Working Groups may be decided on a case-by-case basis. Two examples that are currently active are also indicated in Fig. 1. These are the International Mars Exploration Working Group (IMEWG) and the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG). While these groups are selfregulating and independent, they allow scientific and
operational coherence in areas where very broad participation has become the norm. Thus it is clear that in its new form, the IACG represents a significant channel for the harmonization of international space science programmes. While in no way affecting the rights and duties of individual space agencies and their scientific advisory bodies to construct programme roadmaps and to select and prioritise missions, it provides a forum where rational long-term planning can be conducted in a situation where the growing cost and complexity of space science mandates an approach that is demonstrably efficient and costeffective.
5. Conclusion From the beginning of the last century, a strong tradition of collaboration has developed in the physical sciences. In the early part of the century this collective approach was exercised by small numbers of individuals in universities. The world war of 1939–45 changed the situation through the application of the recently discovered fundamental physical laws in a host of militarily driven situations, e.g. nuclear weapons development. Following the war, the pace of application
184
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
quickened with spectacularly successful examples being provided by the semiconductor industry and by the widespread use of digital techniques. While the basic physical sciences continue to develop with the potential to benefit all of humanity, this happens increasingly against a background of higher implementation costs and correspondingly greater difficulty in bringing ground-breaking programmes to approval and fruition. Thus the need for international collaboration among the developed nations grows ever more pressing. The spacebased sciences are of crucial fundamental importance but have large demands which mandate a collective will among the developed nations to pool their resources. In a time of great opportunity and popular support for the advancement of space science, we hope that the considerations developed in this article, and the proposed operational structures, will help promote more effective international collaboration and a more cost-effective approach to the realization of our scientific goals.
member Agencies and on areas of inter-agency coordination. The IACG seeks, through inter-agency coordination, to enhance the scientific output of specific and approved space science missions and research in areas of shared interest. The IACG proceeds by consensus among the member Agencies. Agreements are implemented by the member Heads independently within their own organizations. The IACG may sponsor colloquia and workshops that are of direct value for the attainment of its objectives. The IACG will continue its activity for as long as deemed useful by the member Agencies. A.3. Disciplines covered by the IACG The IACG will cover all disciplines of space science of common interest to its members Agencies. A.4. Membership
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Johan Bleeker, Director General of SRON, member of the ESSC and Chair of the ESPSP panel of the ESSC; Claude Canizares, former Chair of the SSB; and Vittorio Manno, Executive Secretary of the IACG, for providing their very useful advice, inputs and comments. The very hard and challenging work and contributions from the participants to the study ad hoc group and to the international hearing (N. Bigelow, A. Gim!enez, J. Grindlay, E. Gru. n, G. Haerendel, M. Jacob, S. Kahn, P. Masson, A. Nishida, D. Paige, T. Owen, J.-L. Puget, S. Solanki, A. Title, M.J.L. Turner, S. Vitale, J.C. Zarnecki) are gratefully acknowledged.
IACG member Agencies are: * *
*
*
A.5. Organization In order to ensure the success of the IACG a straightforward but informal organizational framework is essential: *
Appendix A. IACG TERMS OF REFERENCE A.1. Purpose The purpose of the IACG is to promote among its member agencies coordination of future planning and implementation of specific approved space science missions. The IACG provides an international forum in which space science activities are discussed on an informal basis among representatives of the member agencies.
A.2. Policies The IACG provides a forum for policy discussion and informal consultations on the strategic planning of its
The European Space Agency (ESA). The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), Japan. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Russian Space Agency (RSA).
*
*
*
Schedule of meetings: Regular meetings of the IACG take place on an annual basis and rotate from country to country. Special meetings are convened as required. Chairmanship: Chairmanship of the IACG is transferred from agency to agency with the responsibility for hosting the regular meetings. Chairmanship for special meetings will be treated ad hoc. Level of participation: Agency delegations consist of the Heads of the member Agencies science programmes (H/D) each supported by one (alternatively two, depending on the tractanda) senior staff and by the IACG Executive Secretary. A few key members of each Agency’s respective scientific community can be included. Minutes: Meeting summaries with a list of agreements and action items for the following year will be established by the Executive Secretary for approval by the Heads.
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186 *
Member Agencies shall nominate a ‘‘contact point’’ for IACG related matters and communications with the Executive Secretary.
A.6. Establishment and operations of working groups and task groups Groups may be established by unanimous consent of the member Heads, upon proposal by one or more sponsoring Heads. 1. Task groups are created to provide input to the H/D on specific strategic planning or technical issues. Tasks could include advice on: harmonization of the agencies scientific roadmaps; division of responsibilities among the agencies in specific sectors; opportunities for inter agency cooperation in selected areas; the establishment or dissolution of specific Working Groups; etc. Task groups shall include members appointed by all member Agencies. Should the need arise for broadening international participation other experts or representatives of other agencies may be included. The normal duration of a task group is one or two years. 2. Working groups are created to conduct inter-agency coordination in the implementation and/or operations of missions of the member Agencies in agreed discipline areas.Their brief can relate to scientific coordination, such as campaigns, or to cross-disciplinary technical aspects (data archives, interoperability, etc). Membership of Working groups will include representatives of the member agencies appointed by the relevant Head in consultation with the Group Chairperson. Membership may be kept flexible to meet the evolution of the subject matter and the availability of the persons. The membership should reflect the eminently technical task of the working group and include mission and project scientists. The duration of Working Groups may by necessity extend over several years depending on the evolution of the programme within their mandate. Each working group and task group shall have a specific written charter detailing the purpose and product of its activities and expected termination date; this charter will be agreed to unanimously by the Heads. Task and Working Groups will have a chair, and optionally a co-chair or deputy-chair, agreed on unanimously by the member Heads. To minimize travel time and expense, the Groups will meet during the year at existing scientific or technical conferences attended by their membership but as a general rule distinct from the IACG annual H/D meeting. Task and Working groups will submit an annual report. The report may be transmitted in writing or may, if requested, be presented directly at the H/D annual meeting by the Chair (or one designee). The report shall
185
cover (1) the activities of the past year, (2) products or conclusions developed, and (3) plans for the next year’s activities. Working groups and Task groups may be terminated at any time by unanimous consent of the Heads. A particular situation arises whenever, in a specific discipline area, more Agencies, other than the IACG members, have strong interest and willingness to provide a substantial contribution. [Two such cases arose in the past, namely in the Mars Exploration and Lunar Exploration areas. In both cases the IACG sponsored wide-open Workshops (organized by ESA in Wiesbaden, 1993 and in Hamburg, 1995) that led respectively to the establishment of the two independent working groups: IMEWG (with the additional participation of, inter alia, CNES, ASI and DARA), and ILEWG (with a total of ten agencies). Both groups report formally to COSPAR and are self-regulating.] In similar circumstances, the IACG may in future decide to follow the same pattern and agree to foster the establishment of, and provide initial legitimacy to, Independent Working Groups that include the non-IACG agencies.
A.7. Executive Secretary 1. An Executive Secretary is designated for the organization of the IACG annual meetings and dayto-day work between meetings. Selection of the Executive Secretary requires unanimous consent of the member Heads. 2. Duties include: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Maintain a close link with ‘‘contact points’’ designated by each member agency. Distribute information on forthcoming annual IACG meetings. Establish IACG meeting agendas in consultation with member agencies. Prepare meeting summaries and track H/D action items, as requested. Maintain working group and task group charters, schedules, and membership lists. Collect and distribute working group and task group reports to member agencies. Poll Heads for agreement on issues between IACG annual meetings, as required. Participate as required in essential IACG related events. Serve as contact point with the outside community.
The Executive Secretary is supported by a Secretariat situated at the International Space Science Institute (ISSI) in Bern, Switzerland.
186
J.L. Culhane, J.C. Worms / Space Policy 17 (2001) 179–186
References [1] Launius RD. NASA: A history of the US civil space program. Florida: Krieger, ISBN 0-89464-878-0, 1994. p. 21. [2] Van de Hulst HC. COSPAR’s first years: a personal view. In: Haerendel G, Grzedzielski S, Cavallo G, Battrick B, editors. 40 years of COSPAR, r COSPAR/ESA, BR-135, 1998. p. 5–13. [3] Bonnet RM, Manno V. International cooperation in spaceFthe example of the European space agency. Harvard: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-45835-4, 1994. p. 82. [4] US–European Collaboration in Space Science. ESF–NRC Joint Report, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1998, ISBN 0-309-05984-4.
[5] US–European Collaboration in Space Science. NRC-ESF, Space Policy 1998;14:215–221. [6] US–European–Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation. SRC/ JSC, SSB/NRC and ESSC/ESF Joint Report, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999. [7] ESSC-ESF. Future of International Collaboration in Space Science. An ESSC-ESF Position Paper, European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, 2000, ISBN 2-912049-19-9. [8] SSB-NRC. Assessment of mission size trade-offs for NASA’s earth and space science missions. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2000, ISBN 0-309-06976-9.