NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 20100021424: Global Trends in Space Access and Utilization

2 MB·English

by  NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Global Trends in Space Access and Utilization
Shamim A. Rahman*
AIAS 1, Stennis Space Center, MS, 39529
Nicholas S. Keim` and Peter E. Zeender"
The Johns Hopkins University, Chemical Propulsion Information Analysis Center, Columbia, MD, 21044
Abstract
In the not-so-distant past, space access and air/space technology superiority were within the purview of the U.S. and
former Soviet Union's respective space agencies, both vying for global leadership in space exploitation. In more
recent years, with the emergence of the European Space Agency (ESA) member countries and Asian countries
joining the family of space-faring nations, it is truer now more than ever that space access and utilization has
become a truly global enterprise. In fact, according to the Space Report 2007, this enterprise is a $251-billion
economy.
It is possible to gauge the vitality of worldwide efforts from open sources in today's transparent, media-based
society. In particular, print and web broadcasters regularly report and catalog global space activities for defense and
civil purposes. For the purposes of this paper, a representative catalog of missions is used to illustrate the nature of
the emerging "globalization." This paper highlights global trends in terms of not only the providers of space access,
but also the end-users for the various recently accomplished missions. With well over 50 launches per year, in recent
years, the launch-log reveals a surprising percentage of "cooperative or co-dependent missions" where different
agencies, countries, and/or commercial entities are so engaged presumably to the benefit of all who participate.
Statistics are cited and used to show that recently over d0% of the 50-plus missions involved multiple nations
working collectively to deliver payloads to orbit. Observers, space policy professionals, and space agency leaders
have eloquently proposed that it might require the combined resources and talents of multiple nations to advance
human exploration goals beyond low earth orbit. This paper does not intend to offer new information with respect to
whether international collaboration is necessary but to observe that, in continuing to monitor global trends, the
results seem to support the thesis that a global interdependent effort with all its likely complexities is an increasingly
viable and pragmatic option.
The discussion includes a breakdown of space missions into those of civil (scientific), military, and strictly
commercial nature. It concludes that all three are robust components of a globally diversified portfolio of activities
relying, essentially, on a common space industrial base and space infrastructure. As in other industries, the
distribution of space industry assets and knowledge across countries and continents enables a diverse suite of
options and arrangements, particularly in the areas of civil and commercial space utilization. A survey of several
ongoing bilateral and multilateral space collaboration examples are provided to augment the observations regarding
multinational work in space.
Deputy Director, Engineering & Test, NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC), MS, 39529, Associate Fellow.
Staff Engineer, CPIAC, 10630 Little Patuxent Pkwy., Suite 202, Senior Member,
Deputy Director, CPIAC, 10630 Little Patuxent Pkwy., Suite 202, Senior Member.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
L INTRODUCTION purchase a launch, and competitively offered by more
than eight nations who are able to provide a launch
Fifty years after the formal inception of the vehicle for LEO payload delivery. Launch suppliers
U.S. civil space program, it is appropriate to recount today include: U.S., Russia, Ukraine, China, Japan,
the prescient words of President Dwight D. India, ESA-member countries (France/'Germany etc.),
Eisenhower leading up to the NASA Authorization and several additional nations following closely
Act of 1958. In his March 26 statement on behind with their own government-sponsored launch
"Introduction to Outer Space," the President stated to vehicles.
the country, and essentially to the world: Today, worldwide launch rates are
"(There are) many, aspects of space and appreciable and sustained. Unbeknownst to most of
space technology ... which can be helpful to all the public, there is a major launch to earth orbit
people as the United States proceeds with its peaceful (ETO) essentially every week of the year. ETO
program in space science and exploration. Every launch missions may be placed into one of three
person has the opportunity to share through categories: those for strictly military purposes, those
understanding in the adventures which lie ahead." for scientific purposes, and those for commercial
"This statement [ .... J makes clear the needs; hereafter referred to as military, civil, and
opportunities which a developing space technology commercial space applications. It is worth noting that
can provide to extend man's knowledge of the earth, the mix of missions among the three major types is
the solar system, and the universe. These shifting toward an increased diversity of missions,
opportunities reinforce my conviction that we and sponsors, and providers. In looking closer at this mix,
other nations have a great responsibility to promote we are able to identify noteworthy trends about an
the peaceful use of space and to utilize the new emerging international industrial base for space
knowledge obtainable from space science and products and services.
technology for the benefit of all mankind" '
There is much evidence today that Eisenhower's II. SPACE LAUNCH DATABASE
prognostication has home out. While this former
General is known for having coined the term Industry observers are paying close attention
Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC), he is less well to launch activity worldwide and the corresponding
known for his seminal contribution to the dawn of missions in order to accurately report their findings to
Human Space Flight and the civil space program. a vibrant marketplace for space products and
Both aspects of President Eisenhower's services. Figure I is an excerpt from a report by
2
forecast are at play in the twenty-first century. The Futron Corp. provided as an example. This study
purpose of this paper, however, is to show that the indicated a fairly stable level of ETO launch activity
first aspect--civil and commercial space--might in the beginning of the twenty-first century at sixty
become the dominant aspect to influence and shape a launches per year with approximately one-third being
worldwide space science industry devoted to meeting of the commercial (non-government) type. The actual
the evolving needs of humankind. number of launches is 55 for the years 2004 and
Once Sputnik deorbited in January 1958, 2005.
more than 50 years ago, the U.S. and the former
Soviet Union were investing heavily in civil space 80
efforts, which some believe was a proxy investment 70
toward military space ends. Following the
60
superpowers' race to the moon, a period of
m 50
retrenchment followed, which gave an opportunity
for other parties to enter the space flight arena. Thus, 40
the first significant multinational space collaboration J 30
efforts began in the form of the European Space
20
Agency (ESA) in 1974-- 35 years ago--with 6 nations
10
and is now comprised of as many as 17 member
nations.
The success of ESA following the success of
the U.S. and former U.S.S.R. motivated Asian - -C:Ol5 ,C*1 TOTAL
nations to institute long-term indigenous space
technology efforts for both space access and Figure 1. ETO Launches worldwide by type, 2001-
utilization. Today, space access into low earth orbit 2005 (reproduced with permission from 2004
(LEO) is available to virtually any nation willing to report by Futron Corp, see Ref. 2).
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
We begin by noting the various launch vehicles that
The Aerospace Corporation, a federally-funded, not- comprise today's "operational global fleet," including
for-profit research and development center (FFRDC) their corresponding launch sites, and then note the
in the U.S., also tracks launch activity and analyzes types of payloads from various countries around the
success rates of launch systems in detail, such as in world that paid for access to space. Suborbital
the comprehensive Ref. 3 study, and their causes. missions are excluded in this discussion since, for our
Notable examples of media observers also purposes, "access to space" means achieving enough
exist. For the purpose of this paper, multiple publicly kinetic energy so as to sustain a payload for at least a
sources were consulted, including Spaceflight Now's few completed earth orbits, if not a mission duration
Launch Log and The Space Launch Report."' The of several years.
logs were compared for accuracy and formed the
basis of the log used for this work, the CPIAC 111. SPACE LAUNCH INFRASTRUCTURE
Launch Log6. The data were further refined to AND ACTIVITY
include only successful launches of orbital satellites
in order to reflect space utilization and not attempted ETO launch providers include governments
utilization of space. An inspection of the launch log and corporations located on three of the seven
is informative in that it reflects top-level essential continents of the world (North America, Europe, and
details of the mission such as the type of launch Asia), and are the product of aggressive R&D from
vehicle, the name of the payload(s), the location of national space agencies. Both new and derivative
the launch site, and the actual launch date/time, models of launchers have evolved according to
among other facts and figures. Whereas each launch individual nation's space policiesi'strategies. Their
event is a remarkable achievement in itself, the respective launch sites are located around the globe--
composite of information over multiple years can be on land, coastal areas, and even on the ocean itself. A
quite instructive, for it gives insights into global review of this diversity of capability is an integral
trends in the space marketplace. The following two part of understanding global trends.
examples may illustrate the database's utility. Figure 2 shows the ETO launch vehicles
In the past decade it was expected that employed for the missions given in the launch log.
commercial technology needs would spur sustained This set of active launchers is surprisingly a modest
demand for space launches for communications fraction of the historical family of earth-to-orbit
satellites. The launch log in Ref. 4 allows a multi- launchers referred to in Ref. 3 and described in more
year review of such payloads since each mission detail by Isakowitz in Ref. 7. In order to facilitate
payload is given. It was further expected that in the comparison, the vehicles are shown approximately to
twenty-first century new launch providers and end- scale, categorized by space powers, in approximate
users would enter a market originally dominated in order of vehicle stack height. The Soviet space
both supply and demand by the U.S. and the former program derived launchers include the current
Soviet Union in a bipolar twentieth century.
versions known as Rokot, Proton, Zenit, Soyuz,
The database today reflects a global space
Molniya, Tsyklon, Kosmos, Dnepr, Shtil', Volna, and
marketplace, where end-users benefit by having a Start-1. The current U.S. launcher fleet includes the
choice of launch providers at varying levels of risk Delta 2, the Medium, Intermediate, and Heavy-lift
and cost. Evidence of various types of collaborative Delta 4, the Medium and Intermediate Atlas V, the
arrangements between and among governments, Space Shuttle, Pegasus, Taurus, and Minotaur. A new
international corporations, and private-public and remarkable third group includes the operating
arrangements are found as well. As an anecdotal
launchers Ariane 5, Long March, H2A, M-5, PSLV,
example, consider the comanifested Thai and
GSLV, and their variants, which have demonstrated
Mexican payloads--launched on an Ariane vehicle payload delivery to ETO multiple times. Retired and
(by ESA of Europe)--from the South American island sporadically used launchers are omitted-, examples
site of Kourou in French Guiana (mission on 27 May would include the U.S. Titan family of rockets, as
2006). Although at first glance this may seem to be well as earlier Delta, Atlas, Ariane, and other
an exceptional case, further review reveals many boosters such as the Soviet shuttle Buran.
examples of bilateral/multilateral missions; such In addition to the active launch vehicles
missions seem to be almost as common as the single- (LV), a new suite of boosters is under development;
nation "indigenously conducted" missions.
examples include the Ares boosters, Falcon I and
The following discussion describes an "as- Falcon 9, Taurus 2, Angara, Vega, and others that
is" state for global space access and makes specific have been openly promoted for ETO use. The
observations by deriving information from 2004 to demonstrated reliability of the new active launchers
2008, the period for which the launch log was posted. 3
is imperfect but maturing. Nevertheless, the sheer
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
number of variations of ETO-capable vehicles launchers are also in development, though not
provides the launch customer with an array of options addressed here.
for payload delivery, covering a range of risk and
cost tradeoffs.
Figure 3 illustrates the launch sites for the
active launch vehicles, focusing on sites used during
the period from 2004 to 2008. The suborbital launch
sites are omitted, unless an actual orbital launch
occurred from that location, e.g., Wallops Flight
Facility (WFF) on the Eastern seaboard of the U.S.
The workhorse launch sites exist within the
continental U.S. and the former Soviet bloc countries.
The latter will henceforth be referred to as
Commonwealth of Independent States or CIS (post-
USSR). In the U.S., Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station (CCAFS) conducts many military launches
and also hosts NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC)
launch sites. Vandenberg Air Force Base (V AFB)
continues to be active as well. The CIS' analogous
sites are the Plesetsk and Baikonur cosmodromes, but
the Dombarovsky site, the Svobodny site (limited
use), and the Barents Sea (submarine) launch
capabilities continue to serve as well. Commercial
launch sites have also been added to the group,
namely, Kwajalein--the Odyssey ocean launch
platform--and Wallops Flight Facility, which was
originally a suborbital launch site.
The Sea Launch Odyssey platform is an
interesting case. The platform itself is owned and
operated by Sea Launch, a multi-national
corporation; it was converted from a Japanese oil
platform into a floating launch site by a Norwegian
company .24 However, as Odyssey's home port is in
California and Sea Launch operations are managed
primarily by the Boeing Company, for the purposes
of this paper Odyssey will be considered a U.S.
launch site.
The emerging capabilities and activities for
space access in non-US and non-CIS countries have
increased greatly in the past two decades. Launch
sites are a good indication of this, as the following
seven sites that have been consistently active for the
period of 2004-2008 of the launch log: China
(Jiuqian, Taiyuan, Xichang), India (Sriharikota),
Japan (Tanegashima, Uchinoura), and ESA (Kourou).
Taken together one can see that the Northern
Hemisphere is dotted with launch sites from the
equator to the northern latitudes of the Barents Sea,
and circumscribe the globe along the latitudes near
the Tropic of Cancer. Coastal sites seem to be
preferred, however, as China and Russia have shown,
land launch sites are just as common. Several new
launch sites for LEO access may become viable over
the next decade as countries with nascent missile
capabilities convert them to better performing larger
vehicles for orbital payload delivery. Private
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
CIS
y;
i2{k^i t't` 1'it{3 [t)#- x`t `!"i ti['i`2?. {t,a `,#}',+, •'-';i F,E tk:•. e-st`^`".€(7'a
f n',.^ssz? (^.',:sx.'i F, €. F,.^ #Ruc-.x$ ,ist 'a.,, ,£?{., ,sx' ? e_393
Y
s t ^3 tJ J A
^ ti3 Pt.
gi z
f.;
£ { £
M t.i A?:.,—., M t T, z A,,.>"s ? It_" h I I AS S£<.t i I LR tf; 2 s M Rt +. MI?3W AL;R
0 S! EE' tj c ^.'ts .i } j ^4 M ,^:4;^,)
Emerging
r
GSI A' € a" ="tarot; lI"*:1 f'tit..t' *t.^..;.
Tar, It. 19; !t, t^'t tt.. E`3 it. ^.{^. fâ.. lot It
t^:^3kz3Ck-"} (^Y'4{itk} `{ lYa 3d3 (,E^EN^E^Fz FE^E^ Y{S331s
Figure 2. Depictions of most Earth-to-orbit launch vehicles used in recent years (scale is
relative/approximate); various additional derivatives exist but are not shown for brevity.
S
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 3. Launch sites employed for space access (from 2004 to 2008) by established worldwide providers of E'TO launch services.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Given the proliferation of ETO launch faring nations is meant to include the following types
capability, a measure of worldwide space access is of bilateral or multilateral arrangements involving the
the number of mission conducted with these assets. launch pad, the LV, and the spacecraft (SIC): a) Both
Figure 4 compares the number of missions conducted LV and launch pad from one nation, and one or more
by the U.S. and CIS with those of the newer space- SIC by other nation(s); b) both LV and S ' , I C by a one
faring nations. There has been a steady rise of nation, and the launch pad in and by another nation;
missions by the emerging space-faring nations. The or c) the launch pad of one nation and the LV and
combined activities of China, India, Japan, and ESA one or more S/C of another nation. Scenario C,
have led to 21 missions conducted in 2008, versus though unusual, became possible upon the break-tip of
only 12 in 2004. At an annual global rate of the Soviet Union (Kazakhstan of CIS having the
approximately 50 to 65 missions per year, the launch pad), and applies also to Kourou, the primary
fraction of missions conducted by emerging space- provider of ESA's launch facilities. While there may
faring nations has surged from 23 percent to 33 be certain unusual permutations in the gray area (e.g.,
percent in a period of only 4 years. The numbers of SeaLaunch Corp's use of a platform on the Pacific
payloads actually being lofted into orbit is greater Ocean, and CIS submarine launches from Barents
than the number of missions/launches by a significant Sea), the above approach satisfies the analysis
amount, as shown in Table 1. This is due to payload objectives of this work.
co-manifesting (double or triple occupancy). Collaborative 'multi-party" missions
Unlike the data presented in Ref. 3, the account for more than one-third of all the combined
recent, high success rates of newer space launch missions from 2004 to 2008. (The arrangements are
vehicles are attractive to prospective global users varied and worthy of more detailed discussion,
(commercial and government), making the newer though beyond the scope of this paper). It is safe to
launchers more competitive with the U.S. and CIS. assume that these collaborations are now considered
more the "norm" than the exception. Since most
70 military missions are performed within the purview
of a single nation with vested national interest in
60
mission success-- many scientific missions are this
50 way also--most of the collaborative/cooperative
missions tend to be a result of commercially-based
40
motivations.
30
20 70
10 60
50
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
40
Figure 4. Worldwide space missions: Traditional
versus Emerging ETO launches. 30
20
10
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Table 1. Missions and Payloads to ETO.
Figure 5. Collaborative missions requiring multi-
20041 2005 2006 2007 2008
nation space infrastructure versus single-nation
Space
51 52 62 63 65 infrastructure for ETO payloads.
Launches
Payloads
57 62 67 79 71 A representative example would be the
Lofted
following 2006 mission: a CIS Zenit booster,
launched from the Pacific Odyssey ocean platform,
Figure 5 presents data on worldwide space
carrying an American-built payload for Japan'
missions from 2004 to 2008 in terms of the amount Another example is the European Ariane 5 launcher
of collaboration among nations, whether agZ^encies or delivering both a Thai and a Mexican satellite from
private-public entities. For the forthcoming its South America Kourou launch site. The
discussion, collaboration among two or more space involvement of 3 or 4 nations, with quite
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
geographically dispersed assets, is not unusual of and b. Despite a less diverse LV fleet, the latter
late. It would be interesting to develop a group operates many launch sites.
collaboration index specifying the degree of
multilateralism involved in the missions (number of 17 US
nations involved say), however this is deferred for EMS
future work. n Emerging
A complementary metric to Figs. 4 and 5 is
the comparison of ETO missions with a single-
payload manifest to those missions with a multi-
payload manifest, Fig. 6. According to the launch-
log, single-occupancy payloads still dominate space
launch manifests. There is, however, a trend of
increasing multi-payload manifests. Figure 7 shows
that the number of countries launching these types of
missions is increasing.
70 a) Launch Vehicle Types by source
60 - -- --- - -- -- - -- —
OUS
50 E CIS
40 ^P^ erging
30 q Multi nation multi PIL
20 q Single nation multi PIL
10 -{--j 1—{ i o Single nation single PIL
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure 6. Comparison of space launches delivering
single-payload versus co-manifested multi-nation
payloads.
b) Launch Sites by source
20
Figure 8. Launch vehicle types (a) and launch sites
18 (b) around the globe.
16
14 Table 2 summarizes information about
launches/mission conducted by the U.S., CIS, and
12
emerging space-faring nations, as reflected in Ref. 3.
10
The missions conducted by ESA are denoted
8 separately in the table, though included under
6 "emerging" capabilities in Figure 4. This grouping is
4 somewhat subjective and debatable, given that ESA
launches and missions date from the 1980s. For the
2
purpose of this paper, non-U.S. and non-CIS nations
0
are grouped together to better compare their space
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 activity in relation to the two nations involved in the
Figure 7. Space faring groups which have 1960s space race.
performed missions with co-manifested multi-
nation payloads.
The distribution of ETO launch vehicles and
associated launch sites among the U.S., CIS, and
emerging space-faring nations is illustrated in Fig. 8a
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Table 2. Worldwide Launches by Grou 3. hypothesized that the globalization of space products
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 and services (government and commercial) will be a
USA 17 16 22 17 I8 signature of a new space era ahead. Despite setbacks
CIS ("former 22 23 23 25 26 due to the challenging nature of missions, the
USSR") increase in worldwide space capability and
ESA 3 5 5 6 6 infrastructure does not go unnoticed by governments,
(`Europe") corporate enthusiasts, and the mass media; a
Asia (India, 9 8 12 15 15 representative example of each may be seen in Refs.
China, 12, 13, and 14, respectively. Perspectives vary
Japan) according to interests and are sometimes overly
optimistic regarding potential synergies of
TOT = 51 52 1 62 63 65
transnational collaboration, and other times
Note: Emerging space faring nations are considered
protectionist.
here to be non-U.S. and non-CIS nations, namely
Perspectives aside; it is expedient to identify
ESA group of countries-- India, China, and Japan.
collaboration and cooperation ventures as either
bilateral or multilateral, and consisting of
An indication of interest in space utilization
government-to-government agreements, private-
is possible by examining where the payloads are from
sector agreements across national borders, and
internationally (Figure 9). This is estimated directly
combinations of governments and private companies
from the launch-log database of 2004-2008. Payloads
as permissible by national authorities. The particulars
from North America are the most numerous, with
of the arrangements are not within the scope of this
U.S. supplying 102 payloads, 7 from Canada and
paper; however, what is of interest here is the fact
Mexico, and 5 from South America. The Asian
that a multitude of both public and private entities are
countries, collectively, built or commissioned 92
indeed able to reach across national boundaries to
payloads, while Europe built or commissioned 50.
serve a global client base.
The CIS payloads numbered 76, while Australia and
African countries supplied 2 each.
A. Economic Incentives for Cooperation
C—L, A­ fr. H-
o US Commercial activity spawns an inter-
dependent approach to space access and space
0 (Von-US NA
Eu utilization. The amount of this activity is measured in
o Cis the 2008 Space Report by the Space Foundation .' In
particular, it identifies $251 billion of global space
o Asia
revenue for 2007 worldwide. Remarkably, only 31%-
-$77 billion--was attributable to government space
® Europe
budgets of the U.S. and other international
o South government investments in space activity, which
America
includes military space. The remaining $174 billion
D Australia
was commercial revenue. The launch industry
-Us
Africa revenue portion is reported at $3 billion annually,
^. 7
which seems a modest enabling investment by
Figure 9. Worldwide interest in space utilization comparison .9 The Space Foundation Index (SFI), an
in terms of spacecrafts launched globally. index of activity, has increased from a value of 100 in
mid-2005, to 130 by year-end 2007, which is
The space access marketplace is now a consistent with the trends in the previous section.
subject of great interest commercially and While commercially-developed and -
strategically for both the public and private sectors. s- operated space transportation services are still
11 The following sections of this paper highlight some limited, the users of such services are abundant and
trends found in this marketplace, as noted in open satellite builders have tapped into a strong satellite
media sources. communications market. The 2008 Space Report
gives the values of $65 billion and $56 billion for
IV. FACTORS INFLUENCING direct-to-home television service and global
COLLABORATION positioning (GPS) applications services, respectively.
As long as there is a high demand for global satellite
If the advent of ballistic missiles ushered in communications, the spacecraft constellations will
the dawning of the Space Age, then it can be require periodic replenishments and upgrades, thus
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
sustaining a predictable market for launch providers coordination mechanism would play a defining role
to make the necessary constellation visits. in helping multiple space programs around the globe
For the years 2004 to 2008, a large number to move forward in concert and identify gaps,
of communications spacecraft were completed and overlaps, and synergies along the way.
delivered to orbit. The referenced launch-logs note According to a NASA press release, "the
that a variety of launch providers were utilized, framework document is an important step in an
including various U.S., CIS, and more recently, the evolving process toward a comprehensive global
emerging Asian nations' launchers. approach to space exploration. Although the
It also is noteworthy that the commercial framework document is non-binding, its contents are
satellite business is historically rooted in the consistent with ongoing bilateral and multilateral
formation of Intelsat, an inter-governmental discussions that would lead to cooperative
organization that was created to provide global agreements for specific projects. In addition to
satellite communications. In 2001, Intelsat was NASA, representatives from civil space agencies in
privatized into a multi-national corporation, and is Australia, Canada, China, the European Union,
one of the largest operators of satellites, with over 50 France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Italy, Japan,
satellites in operation today_ Russia, the Republic of Korea and Ukraine
participated in the Global Exploration Strategy
14
B. Shared Vision for Space Utilization discussions." The member agencies include ASI
(Italy), BNSC (UK), CNES (France), CNSA (China),
National space agencies typically maintain a CSA (Canada), CSIRO (Australia), DLR (Germany),
strategic roadmap spanning a decade or two for their ESA (Europe), ISRO (India), JAXA (Japan), KARI
investments in non-military space. Non-U.S. national (South Korea), NASA (U.S.), NSAU (Ukraine), and
agencies, such as the European Union and Japan, Roscosmos (Russia). Many of the countries involved
maintain openly published roadmaps, often available have developed an independent or inter-dependent
on their Web sites. Conference proceedings openly (cooperative) viable space access infrastructure.
document this type of information. 1Q For several Thus, at least both national economic and national
years, the U.S. focused its civil space efforts on the strategic motives are expected to facilitate the
2005 Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). The U.S. globalization of space, and collaboration in
VSE as released in 2005 envisioned a continuous particular. In Ref. 16, Hudiberg makes well-
human presence in space on-board the International supported observations after examining several
Space Station (ISS), and also a lunar outpost in the decades of NASA's various types of collaboration
2020s. The EU intends to develop its own capabilities agreements. Essentially, in categorizing hundreds of
to send humans to orbit, and later to the moon, during NASA collaborations over its entire history,
the next two decades. Japan's space roadmap Hudiberg finds that both policy and technology
articulates a strong focus on societal benefits first and readiness can incentivize (or disineentivize) the U.S.
subsequently leads to goals and timeframes for space agency to collaborate across national borders.
human space access capability. A marked decline in the number of collaborations
Such strategic plans are comparable or was observed beyond the late 80s, which correlated
analogous in terms of certain goals or timeframes. strongly with increasing complexity or maturity of
For instance, in the specific case of Earth observation NASA projects where perhaps external relationships
missions of remote sensing, in which all major were perceived as making technology management
national space agencies have an interest. A more difficult. The ISS is a notable exception.
transparent internet-based media environment Reference 17 reports on a special global space
facilitates the exchange of information among cooperation meeting (among high level government
national space agencies and both independent and officials), where the desire for more integration
collaborative planning for space. The Space 2008 among space-faring nations was discussed. Riess,
Report summarizes some of this transnational Popp, and Ryzenko discuss space globalization at a
collaboration and developing cooperation and tactical level with programmatic case studies. where
collaboration is discussed in the Global Exploration all argue in favor of global space cooperation and
Strategy Report, Framework for Coordination. 14 The knowledge sharing. 11-21
framework document-- summarizing the perspectives Additional factors that may drive
from space agencies of 14 nations--calls for the collaboration include the collateral benefits of space
establishment of a formal voluntary non-binding technology that accrue toward military and political
mechanism by which space agencies can exchange goals, however, these are excluded from the scope of
information and coordinate activities and plans for this paper and may be studied in the future. Instead,
their respective space exploration goals. Such a the remaining discussion presents some selected
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics