IAC-09-B4.1.3

THE EVOLUTION OF PROGRAMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Danielle Wood Doctoral Student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA [email protected]

Dr. Annalisa Weigel Assistant Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes the historical paths of eight countries – from Africa, Asia and Latin America – as they pursued technical capability in the area of space technology. Through this analysis, the paper provides three major contributions. The first contribution is an original framework called the Space Technology Ladder. This Ladder framework proffers an idealized path through four major technology categories, as follows: 1) establishing a national space agency; 2) owning and operating a satellite in Low Earth Orbit; 3) owning and operating a satellite in Geostationary Orbit; and 4) launch capability. The second contribution is a graphical timeline, created by mapping the historical achievements of the eight countries onto the Ladder framework. The results provide information about the similarities and differences in the technology strategies of the various countries. The third contribution is a discussion of the strategic decisions faced by the countries under study. By exploring their diverse strategies, we work toward developing prescriptive theory to guide developing country space programs.

INTRODUCTION

The international space community is the capabilities of their existing space growing. More countries are demonstrating programs to include new capabilities. interest and capability in space. In the beginning of the space era, the funding, This paper considers the policy choices expertise and accomplishments were made by countries as they pursue space dominated by the United States and Soviet activity. It uses historical summaries of Union. Gradually, however, many other developing country space programs to find countries have carved their own place in the models of technology procurement. It space faring society. The first mission of the explores how closely their progress follows US Vision for , the Lunar an idealized process based on progressive Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), technical complexity and increased demonstrates this point. This unmanned managerial autonomy. Countries are spacecraft, which represents the US return considered from Africa, Asia and Latin to the moon, was launched in June 2009i. America. The trajectories of each country’s The LRO mission closely follows the launch space achievements are mapped and of three other that were sent into compared. The results highlight the various lunar orbit by India, China and Japan options that have been exercised in the past between 2007 and 2008. Currently, many for achieving increased national space developing countries are seeking to increase capability. their level of space activity. Some of these countries, such as South Africa, Nigeria and The paper is organized as follows. The next , are investing in their second section outlines the theoretical framework generation of satellites. Others, such as that is the foundation for the analysis. This India and Brazil, plan to drastically extend framework is called the Space Technology Ladder. The third section explains the data

- 1 - and analysis methods used in the study. The The Space Technology Ladder includes four data describes national space technology major levels of space technology milestones for countries from Asia, Africa achievements. At the lowest technical level and Latin America. The fourth section is establishing a national space agency or explains the results and summarizes the an office in charge of at the stories of national space projects that are national level. A country reaches the second expressed in the results. The fifth section technology level by owning and operating a discuses the variety of models used by national satellite in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). countries for the procurement of new space Level three is achieved when a country technology. The final section summarizes owns and operates a satellite in the finding and offers conclusions. Geostationary Orbit (GEO). At level four, a country has independent capability to launch THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE a satellite. The four levels are ranked to SPACE TECHNOLOGY LADDER show an increase in technical complexity. These four technology milestones are There is very little literature that directly chosen because, historically, they reflect the studies the technology and procurement initial efforts of both developed and choices made by developing countries in the developing countries in space. Most area of space technology. This study builds developing countries are not currently on previous work by the authors, which involved in human space flight. Thus, the examined the space activities of countries in Space Technology Ladder focuses on Africaii,iii. These space activities were milestones in space policy, satellites and subsequently ranked on metaphorical launchers rather than human space flight. “ladders” that highlighted the different Table 1 shows the four major milestones of avenues through which countries accessed the Space Technology Ladder. remote sensing, communication and navigation services. Table 1: The Space Technology Ladder – Summary View. The present work examines the policy choices made by developing countries in their pursuit of increased space technology LAUNCH CAPABILITY capabilities. The analysis includes information about the order in which new technical milestones are achieved as well as the procurement model that is used to reach SATELLITE IN GEOSTATIONARY each new milestone. In order to make a ORBIT comparison across several countries, we begin by establishing an idealized technology path that a country could follow as it develops space capabilities. Note that SATELLITE IN LOW EARTH ORBIT the assumed technology path is not meant to serve as a prescriptive standard. It merely provides a convenient way to compare all the countries against a consistent, fictionalized example. The technology path NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY is summarized in the Space Technology Ladder. The ladder is developed by building a list of milestones that some countries The order of the colors in the Space achieve in space. These milestones are Technology Ladder is drawn from the ranked according technical complexity. For natural spectrum. The colors are used to each technical milestone, there are also distinguish the various levels of the Ladder. procurement milestones that represent an They also remind the reader that there is a increase in the level of autonomy of a broad spectrum of ways that countries country when executing a certain technical currently participate in the use of space feat. technology. Throughout the paper, red is

- 2 - used to refer to actions taken with regard to reflect the diversity of ways that countries a national space agency. Yellow highlights might procure a low earth orbit satellite. projects for a satellite in low earth orbit. These sub-categories also represent Green represents projects with different levels of technical autonomy in a geostationary satellites, while blue is used country’s ability to gain access to a satellite. for launch capabilities. Table 3 shows the sub-categories within owning a satellite in Low Earth Orbit. As Table 1 shows the summary view of the before, the lowest level sub-category is on Space Technology Ladder. At this high level, the bottom, and the yellow color it has four categories of space activity that corresponds to level two of the Space are defined based on a technology Technology Ladder. milestone. Each of these four technology categories can be further divided into sub- Table 3: Five LEO Satellite Sub-Categories. categories. The sub-categories represent LOW EARTH ORBIT SATELLITE different options for procuring the relevant Build Locally technology or different levels within the Build Through Mutual International technology. The sub-categories of each Collaboration level in the ladder are described below. Build Locally with Outside Assistance Build with Support in Partner’s Facility Level one on the Space Technology Ladder Procure with Training Services is establishing a national space agency. For some countries, there are several Level three – in green on the Space milestones within this category. Some Technology Ladder – is to own and operate countries establish a national office in a satellite in Geostationary Orbit. As with the charge of space policy or research before LEO satellite, there are a variety of ways they later establish an official space agency. that countries procure a GEO satellite; these Therefore the expanded version of level one methods can also be ranked to show contains these two possible milestones, as increasing technical autonomy. Four options shown in Table 2 below. Following the for obtaining a GEO satellite are listed in example from Table 1, the lower level sub- Table 4. They range from straightforward category in Table 2 is on the bottom. Note procurement to building the satellite locally. that Table 2 is red because it is an expansion of the red level from Table 1. Table 4. Four GEO Satellite Sub-Categories.

Table 2: Two National Space Agency Sub- GEOSTATIONARY SATELLITE Categories. Build Locally Build through Mutual International NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY Collaboration Build Locally with Outside Assistance Procure

Establish Current National Space Agency Finally, consider the fourth level of the Space Technology Ladder, launching a satellite. This is shown in blue in Table 1. Establish First Government Space Office This analysis considers two sub-categories within launching a satellite. The lower level milestone is to launch as satellite to the Level two on the Space Technology Ladder desired orbit in LEO. The higher level is owning and operating a national satellite milestone is to launch a satellite to the in Low Earth Orbit. There are many ways a desired orbit in GEO. To achieve these country can achieve this milestone. For milestones, a country must launch based on example, they can design and build the locally mastered and controlled technology. satellite locally; they can produce the Table 5 shows the expanded view of the satellite in partnership with another country; launch category. or they can buy the satellite from a foreign company. The sub-categories in level two

- 3 - Table 5. Two Launch Sub-Categories. represents a great deal of technical Launch Capability independence. It implies that a country has Launch Satellite to Low Earth Orbit achieved the ability to locally design and Launch Satellite to Geostationary Orbit build satellite. They have also established the facilities in their country needed for The Space Technology Ladder has four satellite integration and testing. Action 7 major categories of technical milestones. arguably demonstrates more technical These are discussed separately above for autonomy than Action 8. We have chosen, clarity. Another view of the Ladder combines however, to organize the framework as the four categories. Table 6 shows this view shown to emphasize the four major and highlights the thirteen distinct actions technology categories (Space Agency, LEO within the framework. Table 6 provides the Sat, GEO Sat, and Launch). Thus, specific version of the framework that will be actions are ranked to show increasing referenced throughout the remainder of the technical autonomy within their technology analysis. category, but not necessarily across categories. Note here a caveat about the philosophy behind the Space Technology Ladder as This section has discussed the theoretical shown in Table 6. In general, the goal of the framework that is the foundation of the framework is to show a series of potential analysis in this study. The Space technology milestones in the area of space Technology Ladder is defined by its four technology and to rank them according to major levels and various sub-categories. their level of technical complexity and This Ladder is proposed as a theoretical managerial autonomy. This is consistently path that a country could follow in achieving done within each of the four major national space milestones. The sub- technology categories, but not necessarily categories within the various levels are across the categories. chosen based on historical evidence of Table 6: The Space Technology Ladder – common technology strategies. The levels Detailed View. and sub-categories are ranked such that a The Space Technology Ladder country increases in technical complexity and autonomy as they go up the Ladder. 13 Launch Capability: Satellite to GEO The Ladder thus provides a theoretical basis 12 Launch Capability: Satellite to LEO by which to compare the actual choices 11 GEO Satellite: Build Locally made by countries as they pursued new 10 GEO Satellite: Build through Mutual space technology. We start by assuming International Collaboration that a country will work its way linearly up 9 GEO Satellite: Build Locally with the ladder, achieving each major milestone Outside Assistance in turn. That is, we assume they will achieve 8 GEO Satellite: Procure technically less complex milestones before 7 LEO Satellite: Build Locally doing more complex tasks. We further 6 LEO Satellite: Build Through Mutual assume that they will choose some, but not International Collaboration all, of the sub-categories as methods toward 5 LEO Satellite: Build Locally with gaining technology. In order to test this Outside Assistance assumption, we collect historical data about 4 LEO Satellite: Build with Support in developing country space programs on three Partner’s Facility continents. This historical data is graphed 3 LEO Satellite: Procure with Training visually and compared to the theoretical Services path laid out by the Space Technology 2 Space Agency: Establish Current Ladder. The following section explains in Agency detail what data is used and how it is 1 Space Agency: Establish First organized for analysis. National Space Office DATA AND ANALYSIS METHODS Consider, for example, that action 7 (LEO Satellite: Build Locally) is ranked below The goal of this analysis is to map the action 8 (GEO Satellite: Procure). Action 7 technical progress in the area of space

- 4 - technology that was achieved by countries summarized in the Human Development from a variety of regions. The visual Index (HDI). The HDI takes into account mapping tests the hypothesis that countries development measurements related to move linearly up the Space Technology money, health and education. A country’s Ladder as they increase their space HDI score is a number between 0 and 1 that capabilities. The historical milestones of combines information about performance in select countries are graphed on a timeline these areas. The 2008 version of the report showing the year that they achieved a ranks 179 countries based on their specific milestone on the Space Technology performance in the HDI. The HDI rankings Ladder. In order to provide scope to the for the eight countries under consideration in analysis, the timeline only shows the first this study are shown in Table 7. Note that a occasion in which a country achieves one of lower HDI rank corresponds to a higher the thirteen milestones from Table 6. This development level. avoids the need to find and visualize a complete timeline of events for each Table 7: Summary of information from country. It also emphasizes the occasions in United Nations Human Development Report which countries take a major step forward in for Countries Included in Study. their level of technical autonomy in the area Human Development Report Information of space. Data about national space HDI Rank Country Region milestones is drawn from the space agency (0 to 1) (1-179) websites of various countries, conference Algeria .748 100 papers and news articles. Egypt .716 116 Africa Nigeria .499 154 The eight countries included in the analysis India .609 132 represent three geographical regions – Malaysia .823 63 Asia Africa, Asia and Latin America – that are South .928 25 traditionally considered to be developing. Korea The African countries are Algeria, Egypt and Argentina .862 45 Latin Nigeria. From Asia, the study includes India, Brazil .807 70 America Malaysia and South Korea. Argentina and

Brazil are the Latin American countries. The Development is clearly a continuous rather countries are chosen because they have than binary concept. It is therefore fruitless achieved – or they are actively pursuing – at to determine explicitly whether a particular least three of the milestones shown in Table country is “developed” or “developing.” As 6. The eight chosen countries are not the Table 7 shows, the countries in the study only ones that meet this criterion. Other are all at different points in their countries from these regions have development process. It is still appropriate to demonstrated a commitment to space, consider them as a group in this study, including Indonesia, China, Iran, Israel, however, because they have been pursuing Pakistan, South Africa, Venezuela and space technology as part of their overall Mexico. Several of these countries could development process. Once the data is also be considered to see if they had collected about the first time each of the reached 3 of the milestones in Table 6. This eight countries achieves a milestone from initial exploration of data from eight the Space Technology Ladder, the countries thus provides a starting point that information is summarized visually on a can inform further research based on the graphical timeline. The vertical axis of the same framework. timeline shows the number of the technical

action taken; this ranges between 1 and 13, The study focuses on developing regions. as on Table 6. The horizontal axis shows the The countries currently span a wide range of year in which the action was completed. In development levels. One way to the case of a space agency, the year refers quantitatively measure their development is to the date the office or agency was based on the rankings of the United Nations established. For a satellite or project, the Human Development Report.iv This annual year refers to the launch date. For a launch report provides a multi-faceted project, the year shows the first date in measurement of development that is

- 5 - which a satellite is safely launched into the 1998, Egypt procured a first geostationary desired orbit. communication satellitevi. Later in 2007, Egypt procured her first low earth orbit In some cases, a project is currently satellite. They bought Egyptsat-1 from a underway, but the complete milestone has Ukrainian company and also paid for training not been achieved. For example, if a of Egyptian engineers.vii. satellite has been built and but has not yet been launched, the milestone has not yet The timeline allows us to quickly see several been reached. Also, if a launch has been aspects of Egypt’s path. First, there was gap attempted unsuccessfully, there is clear of about twenty years between the evidence of the pursuit of this capability but establishment of the first space office and credit can not be given for reaching the the next milestone from the Space milestone. In these cases, the actions are Technology Ladder. Second, they invested shown on the timeline as “Future” in buying a geostationary satellite to offer milestones. The timelines are color coded commercial communication services before following the pattern established in Table 6 they bought their first remote sensing to aid the reader in distinguishing which satellite. There is more to Egypt’s space milestone is achieved at each point. Red story. They plan to procure other satellites shows space agency milestones; yellow for both communication and remote sensing. refers to LEO satellite projects; green is for GEO satellites; and blue designates launch Nigeria’s path along the timeline is shown in projects. The following section shows the black diamonds. Nigeria’s first milestone results of graphing the first time milestones came in 1999 with the establishment of the of each country on timelines. National Space Research and Development Agencyviii. In 2003, Nigeria procured her first RESULTS low earth orbit satellite. They bought a remote sensing satellite called NigeriaSat-1 The timelines for achievement of first time from Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. in milestones from the Space Technology England; they also paid for training of Ladder are shown in regional groups in this Nigerian engineersix. The next milestone section. The regions are presented in was 2007 when Nigeria purchased a alphabetical order: Africa, Asia and Latin communication satellite from China’s Great America. In order to ensure visual clarity, the Wall Companyx. They plan to achieve words describing each specific milestone another milestone when a satellite called NX are left out of the timeline. Instead, the Nigeria is launched. This will be the first reader can refer to the numbers along the satellite for Nigeria that is built by local vertical axis which correspond to the engineers in a partner’s facilityxi. Nigeria’s numbers in Table 6. progress in the past decade shows a clear focus on building up local technical African Countries capability building, especially in low earth Figure 1 shows the timeline results for the orbit satellites. Like Egypt, Nigeria has other three African countries – Algeria, Egypt and satellite projects which do not represent new Nigeria. Egypt’s path, shown in white milestones on the Space Technology triangles, begins the earliest of the three Ladder. countries. In 1971 Egypt established a government office related to space studies. Algeria (purple squares) has three It was a partnership with the United States milestones from Table 6. In 2002, Algeria that was affiliated with the Egyptian both established a national space agency Academy of Scientific Research and (ASAL) and saw the launch of their first low Technology. In 1994, this precursor earth orbit satellite (ALSAT-1)xii,xiii. This institution was reestablished as the current remote sensing spacecraft was purchased Egyptian agency that leads space in the from Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. along area of remote sensing. This new agency is with a training package. Algeria is working called the National Authority for Remote toward gaining its next milestone with the Sensing and Space Sciencesv. Egypt’s next launch of ALSAT-2Bxiv. This will be the milestone from the Ladder is at level 8. In country’s first

- 6 - Nigeria Summary - African Countries Algeria Egypt 14 13 Launch 12 11 10 GEO 9 Satellite 8 7 6 Milestone LEO

5 Milestone Milestone Satellite 4 3 2 Space 1 Agency 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Future2010 YearYear

Figure 1: Timeline of Milestones - African Countries

LEO satellite built locally with outside milestone in 1980, with the first successful assistance, and it is just one of the satellites launch of their Satellite Launch Vehicle-3. It that Algeria hopes to use in the future. sent a satellite to LEO orbit. This was followed in 1981 by the launch of Baskara II, Asian Countries India’s first locally built LEO satellite. The Figure 2 shows the results for Asian year 1981 also saw a milestone in terms of countries. Again we start with the country GEO satellites. India built her first GEO with the earliest milestone; this is India. spacecraft with outside assistance from Europe; this was APPLE-I, an experimental India’s path is in black diamonds connected communication satellite. In 1982, India saw by a solid line in Figure 2. Over the decades, the launch of INSAT-1, another GEO India has had many space technology satellite which they procured from an projects. Keep in mind that this is not a American company. In 1992, the first locally complete list; instead it shows the projects built GEO satellite, INSAT-2A, was launched that represent milestones according the for India. The next milestone in 2001 Space Technology Ladder. India formed the demonstrated India’s capability to launch first government space office in 1962; it was their own geostationary satellites with the called the National Committee on Space Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle.xv,xvi Research. Later in 1969, the current space agency (the Indian Space Research India’s record is impressive; they achieved Organization or ISRO) was founded. In nine of the 13 milestones on the Space 1975, India launched Aryabhata, the first Technology Ladder. Notice that they made LEO satellite built with outside assistance major progress in several technology areas from the USSR. India reached a launch

- 7 - India Summary - Asian Countries Malaysia South Korea 14 13 Launch 12 11 10 9 GEO Satellite 8 7 6 LEO

5 Milestone Milestone Satellite 4 3 2 Space 1 Agency 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Future2010

Year Figure 2: Timeline of Milestones - Asian Countries simultaneously, especially in the 1980s. capability. An attempt in August 2009 almost Between 1975 and 1985, India reached reached this milestonexx. milestones in LEO satellites, GEO satellites and launch capability. Malaysia’s path is shown in violet squares in Figure 2. Like South Korea, Malaysia’s first The second Asian country is South Korea, milestone is from 1989 at the establishment shown in white diamonds on Figure 2. An of the first government space office. For agency called the Korean Aerospace Malaysia, this was the Planetarium Division Research Institute was created in 1989, who pursed space-related educational signaling Korea’s first milestone. Later, in outreach. Malaysia’s next area of 2005, the National Space Committee was achievement is in geostationary satellites. established as the leader for Korean space They have purchased several; the first was policyxvii. In terms of technical milestones, in 1996. In 2000, TiungSat was launched for Korea procured KITSAT-1 (launched in Malaysia. This was Malaysia’s first LEO 1992) and used the opportunity to train local satellite to be procured. The process engineers. Korea’s first locally built LEO included training for local engineers. In satellite is KITSAT-2 launched in 1993xviii. In 2002, the current Malaysian space agency 1999, KOMPSAT-1 was the first satellite was formed. It is called ANGKASA. The built locally with outside assistancexix. latest milestone is from 2009. The first Korea’s first GEO satellite to be procured is Malaysian satellite to be built with the COMS; it is scheduled for launch in 2009. support of a partner in that partner’s facility As of the time of this writing, Korea is was RazakSat. Malaysia worked with South actively pursuing a local LEO satellite launch Korea to develop this satellitexxi.

- 8 - Summary - Latin American Countries Brazil Argentina

14 13 Launch 12 11 10 GEO 9 Satellite 8 7

Milestone 6 LEO 5 Satellite Milestone 4 3 2 Space 1 Agency 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Future2010 2020 YearYear

Figure 3: Timeline of Milestones – Latin American Countries

Latin American Countries 1, which launched in 1993. The current Argentina’s path is shown in black diamonds national space agency of Brazil was in Figure 3. Both Argentina and Brazil established in 1994. Brazil’s next milestone started their first national space office in from the Ladder was in 1999. This was 1961. From there Argentina’s next Ladder Brazil’s first LEO satellite built in mutual milestone came in 1991 when it established international collaboration. The satellite was the current national space agency, known in a remote sensing project with China called Spanish as CONAE (Comision Nacional de CBERS-1. Brazil is pursuing the capability to Actividades Espaciales). In 1996, Argentina launch LEO satellites; this continues to be a saw the launch of its first LEO satellite to be goal for the future.xxiii built through a mutual collaboration. This was the SAC-B mission. Later in 1998, the The next section discusses what can be completed the SAC-A mission, which was learned from these explorations of the the first LEO satellite built locally with historical paths of eight countries in satellite outside assistance. SAOCOM is planned to technology. be the first Argentinean satellite built locally.xxii, DISCUSSION: STATEGIC DECISIONS

Brazil’s story is shown in white triangles on There are various angles by which one Figure 3. Brazil founded a group to lead could view the information shown in the national space activities in 1961. In 1985, previous section. One approach could be to Brazil procured her first GEO consider the historical and political context communication satellite. Brazil achieved a of each country and try to understand how locally built LEO satellite in 1993 with SCD- these factors influenced their technology

- 9 - path. Another approach could be to consider three areas. Each area will be explored in the countries within each region and turn below. compare how these neighboring countries are similar or different. One might also group Space Program Capabilities countries into cohorts based on the time The eight countries presented in this study frame in which their major space activities made conscious policy decisions to achieve began. With these divisions, one could technology milestones in the area of space. compare how strategies for achievement in As part of this process, priorities were set as space technology have changed over time. to what specific technical investments would We propose these avenues of investigation be made. These priorities may have been for future work, as they are beyond the set by different players in different countries scope of this paper. The current paper will – players such as the central government or focus on the strategic decisions made by the technical specialists in the agencies. countries about how to achieve particular Research for this study revealed several milestones on the Space Technology specific examples of decisions about Ladder. These decisions reveal common technical facilities and skills. issued faced by multiple countries. In some cases, it is instructive to see occasions in Make or Buy the Satellite? which two countries handled a situation in In general, countries who want to engage in the same way. Other times, the stark the independent use of space technology differences between country strategies are start by considering the option of having a revealing. national satellite. At this stage, a country may compare the costs and benefits of This work is directed to the community of buying a satellite versus developing local people engaged in or supporting satellite capability to manufacture satellites. This programs in developing countries. The decision is influenced by the kind of satellite purpose of the following analysis is to services a country needs. Many countries extend the thinking of this community about begin with either a remote sensing imagery the options that are available for countries to satellite or a communication satellite. increase their local technical capability. The Remote sensing satellites are typically flown study achieves this purpose by laying out a in Low Earth Orbit and can be relatively number of strategic policy choices that small and simple. Communication satellites countries made in the process of attaining are normally larger, heavier and more milestones from the Space Technology complex than remote sensing satellites Ladder, as described in the previous because they typically operate in GEO orbit, sections. which is very far away.

The discussion divides the policy decisions Of the eight countries studied here, all of into three categories based on the context of them have invested in owning and operating the decisions. The three categories are as at least one LEO remote sensing satellite. follows: Space Program Capabilities, All of these countries also show evidence National Context, and International Context. that they are working toward developing a Decisions about space program capabilities local capability to manufacture such relate to the specific human skills and satellites. All of the countries, except technical facilities in which a country invests. Argentina and Algeria, have chosen to own The national context refers to the and operate a national GEO communication relationship of the space program to satellite. Argentina is an interesting domestic government, industry and exception. This country did not choose to academic actors. The international context build or buy a satellite independently. refers to the relationship of the space Rather, in the 1990’s Argentina licensed a program to foreign government or consortium of European companies to commercial actors. The decisions that operate communication satellites over their facilitated Space Technology Ladder territory and accessed satellite services in milestones for the eight countries in this this mannerxxiv. This is not considered a study can be categorized in one of these milestone on the Space Technology Ladder, but it is an effective way to access the

- 10 - satellite service. Although six countries in technical learning that Korea gained by this study are investing in national working with the University of Surrey in communication satellites, only India has thus KITSAT-1. Later the Kompsat-1 project far succeeded in mastering the technology became the first locally built satellite with to produce communication satellites locally. outside assistance. Even though Korea had already achieved the milestone of building a Make Satellites, Payloads or Both? satellite alone, they know move “down” the If a country chooses to invest in local technology ladder and found a partner for technical capability to produce satellites, Kompsat-1. This helped ensure the quality there are still several layers of decisions to of the Kompsat-1 mission.xxvii be made. Should a country start by focusing on both satellites buses and instrument When to Build Satellite Facilities? payloads? Or should they choose one of Another aspect of the decisions about these on which to focus? Argentina provides building satellites locally regards the an interesting story on this point. The SAC-B physical facilities required to execute satellite was Argentina’s first LEO satellite satellite projects. For most countries, at the built in mutual international collaboration start of their pursuit of space capability, the (Level 10 on the Space Technology Ladder). requisite facilities for manufacture, SAC-B was an astrophysical, science integration and testing of satellites are not mission. Argentina leveraged its growing available. It may be the case that new skills in manufacturing the satellite bus, but facilities must be built or old facilities altered they did not try to provide all the instruments to enable the satellite projects to take place. independently. Instruments and solar cells Countries from this study faced a decision were added by the United States, Italy and regarding when to build facilities locally to Brazil. Through this collaboration, Argentina support various aspects of satellite projects. could achieve more than their own Consider several examples. Both India and resources could providexxv. Argentina started their satellite programs by building LEO satellites locally with outside What is the Program Purpose? assistance or partnership. Thus, they At the start of a satellite project that comes developed the facilities at the same time as early in the space program, country must they developed the human resources. In often also decide whether the goal of the contrast, Nigeria and Malaysia procured project is primarily to learn, to test new their first satellites from a company along technology or to produce an effective with a training program for their engineers. operational satellite. The outcome of this They later sent teams of engineers to build decision strongly affects the choice of how additional satellites in a partner’s facility. to obtain the satellite. Malaysia, for example, Both of these countries are facing the issue had a different purpose for their two LEO of when and how to establish local facilities satellite projects. TiungSat (launched in that will allow them to build future satellites 2000) was an opportunity for training of locally. Nigeria and Malaysia focused first on personnel in a new field. Malaysia worked training people and later on developing with the English company SSTL to build this facilities. spacecraft and sent Malaysian engineers to Surrey for training. For their second satellite, Satellites and Launchers? RazakSat (launched in 2009), the goal was Finally, when a country pursues space to develop a satellite that would provide technology, they face the choice of whether specific imagery services. Malaysia to focus on building satellites or extend their partnered with Korea on this project, but capabilities to include launching. Launching took local responsibility for ensuring that the is a very different technical activity than optical aspects of the satellite would function manufacturing satellites; it is no small effectively.xxvi South Korea also provides an decision to invest in local launch capability. example of the ways that mission purpose For the eight countries studied here, only shapes procurement philosophy. The India has successfully established an KITSAT-2 mission was South Korea’s first independent launch capability to LEO and locally built LEO satellite. The primary GEO. Both Brazil and South Korea are purpose of the mission was to confirm the

- 11 - actively working toward achieving the KITSAT-2 were major milestones for Korea capability to launch LEO satellites. on the Space Technology Ladderxxviii. In a similar case for Argentina, a well-established Summary company called INVAP was the prime To summarize this section, the historical contractor for the SAC series of satellites, paths of the eight countries revealed several which include Argentina’s first two LEO strategic decision points regarding the milestonesxxix. In both of these cases, the process of building up capabilities in the satellite projects were an opportunity to space program. These are questions a stimulate and include existing commercial country may face once they decide to companies. Malaysia’s story is somewhat pursue a satellite project. These decision different. During their first satellite project, a points can be summarized as follows. new company was created to provide 1) Will we acquire satellites through technical leadership and institutional purchase or through manufacture? structure for the newly established 2) Will we build the satellite bus as well community of satellite professionalsxxx. In as payloads or only build the bus? the case of Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt, local 3) What is the primary purpose of this commercial companies seemed to have satellite project – to test new played a less prominent role in past technology, to train people, or to milestones. acquire a satellite that provides specific services? A related question to that discussed above 4) When should we build local satellite regards the type of institutions a country processing facilities? establishes or empowers to execute the 5) Should we invest in local launch space program. Such organizations can be capability? government, commercial, academic or The examples of these eight countries hybrids that combine various aspects. All reveal a variety of ways to answer these eight countries in this study have some questions. The answer will depend on the current government office that leads the needs and resources of each country. national space effort. This government office may partner with external companies, National Context universities or other government offices to The section above discussed decisions execute projects. In Korea’s case, policy is faced by countries with regard to their space made by a National Space Committee, but program capabilities, facilities and human projects are executed by a national research resources. This section considers strategic institute (Korean Aerospace Research choices made by countries with regard to Institute), a university (Korean Advanced the relationship between the space program Institute of Science and Technology), and a and other players in the national context. company that spun out of the university These players may be within the (SaTRec Initative), among othersxxxi. Korea’s government, industry and academia, for story shows how satellite programs can lead example. One area that differentiates the to a complex network of institutional strategies of the countries in this study is the associations within a country. relationship between the space program and domestic commercial actors. In part, In summary, this section points out that countries approach this issue differently due countries have established different to variation in their levels of industrial strategies for organizing the institutions development. Beyond that difference, required to execute satellite projects. however, countries still face a choice about how the procurement of space technology International Context involves local industrial players and fits into A third area of decision making exhibited by overall national technology policy. Consider countries in this study regards relationships a few distinct examples. South Korea with foreign companies and governments in acknowledges the involvement of domestic collaborative space projects. These industry as component suppliers for satellite collaborations took various forms, but they payloads. This was an explicit goal of the affected every country. All eight countries KITSAT series of satellites. KITSAT-1 and obtained at least one satellite through a

- 12 - relationship with a foreign partner. More description is needed to understand the precisely, all eight countries achieved at mechanisms that enabled learning and least one milestone on the Space cooperation in each case. These examples Technology Ladder between Level 3 are presented to highlight the international (Procure LEO satellite with training) and aspect of space policy decision making. Level 6 (Build LEO satellite with mutual international collaboration). This means all Partnership or Purchase? eight countries chose to depend on a foreign A final category of decision making relates government or company to execute one of to a country’s choice about whether to form their early milestone projects. Although an international partnership on a commercial international collaboration on major or political basis. Generally, this means technology projects is common, it is by no choosing between partnering with a foreign means a simple proposition. This section firm or a foreign government. Examples of explores some of the questions addressed both kinds of partnerships are evident in the by countries as they managed their history studied here. A non-commercial international space projects. partnership with a foreign government can be attractive as a way to build both technical When to Partner? and political capital. It may also be billed as One question a country faces is when to a way to save money by sharing costs, involve external partners during the process though decreased expense is not of building up capability in space technology. guaranteed. The challenges of political They can choose to establish partnerships partnerships come from the nature of early in their process. These relationships government projects. They must be vetted may be advantageous in terms of facilitating by the political process at some level. They human resource development. They are are subject to risk due to policy changes, difficult to manage, however, because the and they may be designed based on country that has lower technical interests that do not necessarily promote the sophistication may at a disadvantage in the technology objectives. A commercial relationship. Another approach is to work partnership can benefit from the efficiency of independently during the early stages to a profit-driven company. If a country hires a build up local capability and focus on foreign firm, they can exercise more partnering later as a technical equal. This unilateral control as customers than they discussion brings up another question – how can as political partners. There are also does a country learn about space challenges to working with foreign technology if they do not partner with commercial partners, however. Costs may outside companies or governments? be prohibitive, and regulation may affect Consider the following examples of international trade options. Consider now partnership strategies. Brazil’s first LEO some examples of commercial and political satellite was SCD-1; it was built locally by partnerships among the projects studied the National Institute for Space Research here. and launched by the United States in 1993. After establishing this local satellite In the case of GEO satellites, most countries capability, Brazil collaborated with China on in this analysis purchased their the CBERS series of satellites (first communication satellites from foreign launched in 1999). In contrast to Brazil’s companies. Only India moved further up the independent start at Level 7, the other ladder to develop GEO satellites locally. countries did their first projects in Several countries – including Malaysia, partnership. Argentina’s first LEO satellite Egypt, Nigeria and Brazil – established project was at Level 6 (Mutual International commercial companies to own and operate Collaboration); India started at Level 5 (build the communication satellites for profit. This locally with outside assistance). Meanwhile, is logical in the case of communication. This Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, Malaysia and South facet of the satellite market is the most Korea started their LEO work at Level 3 historically successful in the commercial (Procure LEO satellite with training). sector. The case of LEO satellites shows Of course, these brief outlines do not tell the more variety. Malaysia represents one whole story. Further research and extreme. Both of their LEO satellites have

- 13 - been developed through partnerships with information about the level of technical commercial companies. This model of autonomy achieved within the category. The commercial partnership was also followed Space Technology Ladder is not proffered by South Korea, Egypt, and Algeria. as a prescriptive standard, but rather as a Argentina is at the other extreme. All of their descriptive tool that facilitates comparison of partnership milestones involve non- countries with very different patterns. commercial partnerships with other governments. Meanwhile, India’s long The second major contribution of this paper history includes a mix of milestones via is that it gathers together key information government and commercial partnerships. from the space history of eight countries. Each of these countries has pursued Summary national capability in space technology as Just as a new space program must decide part of their overall process of development. how to arrange an instructional structure to The historical information is summarized organize space efforts domestically, many and visualized in a graphical format. This countries manage the complexity of original format provides instant insight about international partnerships. Countries have the order in which each country achieved made distinct, strategic choices about when major space milestones. This contribution is to pursue partnerships and the types of captured in Figures 1, 2 and 3. partnerships they pursue. The third contribution is highlighting strategic CONCLUSION choices faced by the countries in this study. These decisions can be categorized into This study has made three major three areas, as follows: Space Program contributions to the community that supports Capabilities, the National Context, and the space programs in developing countries. International Context. The decisions in these These contributions are the Space areas determine the nature of each Technology Ladder framework, the graphical country’s path through the Space summary of historical milestones, and the Technology Ladder. Linking these decisions description of strategic space decisions. to the Ladder Framework reveals similarities and differences in the diverse stories. By The Space Technology Ladder (see Table outlining these key decision areas and the 6) is a framework that can be used to define diverse strategies employed by the countries the milestones reached by countries while under study, this paper broadens the pursuing national space technology thinking of the community. Future research capability. The framework has four major will include data about more countries. It will technical categories, which are as follows: 1) also look in greater depth at the contrasting establishing a national space agency; 2) decisions made by countries to understand owning and operating a satellite in LEO; 3) their motivations and outcomes. Ultimately, owning and operating a satellite in GEO; we strive toward depth of understanding and and 4) launch capability. Within each of prescriptive theory to support decision these four major categories are sub- making in developing country space categories that provide additional programs.

REFERENCES i NASA. “Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.” http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/launch.html. Accessed September 25, 2009. ii Wood, D., “The Use of Satellite-Based Technology in Developing Countries.” S.M. Thesis, Aeronautics and Astronautics/Technology and Policy Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2008. iii Wood, D., and Weigel, A., “The Use of Satellite-Based Technology to Meet Needs in Developing Countries,” International Astronautical Congress, IAC-08-B4.1.1, International Astronautical Federation, Glasgow, Scotland, 2008.

- 14 - iv UNDP, “Human Development Reports.” http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/. Accessed on September 25, 2009. v Egyptian National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Science. http://www.narss.sci.eg/AboutNARSS.aspx. Accessed September 25, 2009. vi NileSat. http://www.nilesat.com.eg/satellite.htm Accessed September 25, 2009. vii Campbell, K. “Key African Countries Stepping up their Space Efforts.” Engineering News Online. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/print_version.php?a_id=125912 Accessed September 25, 2009. viii Nigerian National Space Research and Development Agency. http://www.nasrda.net/. Accessed September 25, 2009. ix Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd – Mission Heritage. http://www.sstl.co.uk/Missions/Mission_Heritage. Accessed September 25, 2009. x BBC News. “China Launches Nigerian Satellite.” May 24, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6653067.stm. Accessed September 25, 2009. xi Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd – Current Missions. http://www.sstl.co.uk/Missions/Current_Projects Accessed September 25, 2009. xii Algerian National Space Agency. http://www.asal-dz.org/present.php. Accessed September 25, 2009. xiii Cooksley, Curiel, et al. "Alsat-1 First Year in Orbit" 54th International Astronautical Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law. 29 September - 3 October 2003, Bremen, Germany. xiv EADS Astrium. http://www.astrium.eads.net/en/families/satellite-navigation-sensing-gps- meteorology/remote-sensing/alsat-2. Accessed September 25, 2009. xv Baskaran, A. “Competence building in complex systems in the developing countries: the case of satellite building in India”. Technovation. Vol 21, pp 109-121. 2001. xvi Indian Space Research Organization. “Milestones”. http://www.isro.org/scripts/milestones.aspx Accessed September 25, 2009. xvii Hwang, Chin Young, "Space Activities in Korea - History, current programs and future plans," Space Policy, Vol. 22, pp 194-199, 2006. xviii SaTRec Initiative. “About SATREC.” http://satrec.kaist.ac.kr/english/SaTReC.html. Accessed September 25, 2009. xix “KOMPSAT Arrives at Vandenberg AFB; Satellite Launch Preparations Underway.” Business Wire. October 25, 1999. http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices- government/6650474-1.html. Accessed September 25, 2009. xx Associated Press. “S. Korea’s rocket takes off, satellite launch fails.” MSNBC. August 25, 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32548658/ns/technology_and_science-space/ Accessed September 25, 2009. xxi ANGKASA. “About Us – Our Organization.” http://www.angkasa.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=74 Accessed September 25, 2009. xxii Argentina’s Comision Nacional de Activities Espaciales. “Background.” http://www.conae.gov.ar/eng/sobre/antecedentes.html Accessed September 25, 2009. xxiii Brazilian National Institute for Space Research. “History.” http://www.inpe.br/ingles/institutional/history.php. Accessed September 25, 2009. xxiv Jane’s Information Group. “Nahuel Series (Argentina), Spacecraft – Civil Communications.” http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Space-Systems-and-Industry/Nahuel-series-Argentina.html. Accessed September 26, 2009. xxv Comision Nacional de Actividades Espaciales. “International Participation.” http://www.conae.gov.ar/eng/satelites/sac-b/partinter.html Accessed September 26, 2009. xxvi Malaysia’s Space Agency, ANGKASA. “Satellites.” http://www.angkasa.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=17&Itemid=186 Accessed September 26, 2009. xxvii Hwang, Chin Young, "Space Activities in Korea - History, current programs and future plans," Space Policy, Vol. 22, pp 194-199, 2006. xxviii SaTRec Initiative. “KITSAT-2.” http://satrec.kaist.ac.kr/english/res_kitsat2.html. Accessed September 26, 2009. xxix Argentina’s Comision Nacional de Activities Espaciales. “Satellite Missions.” http://www.conae.gov.ar/eng/satelites/satelites.html. Accessed September 25, 2009. xxx Malaysia’s Space Agency, ANGKASA. “Satellites: TiungSat-1.” http://www.angkasa.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=106&Itemid=186. Accessed September 26, 2009. xxxi Hwang, Chin Young, "Space Activities in Korea - History, current programs and future plans," Space Policy, Vol. 22, pp 194-199, 2006.

- 15 -