ISU Team Project

Additional copies of the Project Report or the Executive Summary for this project may be ordered from the International Space University (ISU) Headquarters. The Executive Summary and the Project Report also can be found on the ISU website.

International Space University Strasbourg Central Campus Attention: Publications Parc d’Innovation 1 rue Jean-Dominque Cassini 67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden France Tel : +33 (0)3 88 65 54 30 Fax: +33(0) 88 65 54 47 http://www.isunet.edu

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals and organisations have generously contributed their time, resources, expertise and facilities to help us make TRACKS to Space possible.

PROJECT SPONSOR

European Space Agency — Industrial Matters and Technology Programmes

Hans Kappler Director Marco Guglielmi Head of Technology Strategy Section Marco Freire Technology Strategy Engineer

PROJECT FACULTY AND TA

Project Initiator Walter Peeters Co-chair Nicolas Peter Co-chair Ray Williamson Teaching Associate Philippos Beveratos English Tutor Sarah Delaveaud English Tutor Carol Carnett

EXTERNAL EXPERTS

Andrew Aldrin Boeing, NASA Systems Randall Correll Science Applications International Corporation Dan Glover NASA Glenn Research Center Tetsuichi Ito NASDA, ISU Faculty Joan Johnson-Freese United States Naval War College Chiaki Mukai NASDA Astronaut Ichiro Nakatani Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) Jean-Claude Piedboeuf Canadian Space Agency Roy Sach Director Defence Space, Australia Gongling Sun EurasSpace GmbH Simon P. Worden Brigadier General, United States Air Force

PERSONAL THANKS

The authors would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to those who made the greatest sacrifices during this two-month space odyssey. To our family and friends who supported this adventure… you are our inspiration.

Nadia Afrin Jeff Del Vecchio Jerry Kulcinski Ryan Shepperd Willem Wamsteker Loic Boloh Marie Diop John Logsdon Noel Siemon Patricia Whitelock Jim Burke Jamie Farrell Trip Mackintosh Vern Singhroy Kazuya Yoshida Ignasi Casanova Bernadette & Simon Gorelov Roux Martinez Francois Spiero Olga Zhdanovich Dean Cheng Ozgur Gurtuna Degrace Mathurin Nataliya Tokarevskaya Eric Choi John Higginbotham Shawn Payne Nikolai Tolyarenko Jennifer Clark Hajime Inoue Maria Persaud Larry Toups CSA staff Kathy Daues Kurt Klaus Michelle Santee Paul-Henry Tuinder H&H Library Juan DeDalmau Andreas Koutepas Binnie & Mario Sen Marili Vrodissi ISU Library

Thank you!

iii

LIST OF AUTHORS

Marie-Josée Bourassa Sofia Fakiri B.Eng. École Polytechnique de Montréal, 1992 Diploma in English Philology, Specialisation Project Management Engineer, Canadian in Translation - Interpretation, National Space Agency Kapodistriako University of Athens 1999 Masters Degree in Translation, Interpretation, Diane Burchett Marc Bloch University 2000 B.A.Sc MMS Engineering, University of MPhil in International Relations-European Toronto, 1991 Studies, Robert Schuman University 2001 PMP Engineering Manager at COM DEV PhD student in International Politics Space Ltd. Zhongze Fan Hongwei Cheng Master of Launch Technology, National M.S. Communication & Electronic University of Defence Technology 2000 Engineering, National University of Defences PhD of Computer Science, Xi'an Jiaotong Technology in CHINA, 1995 University Ph.D. Communication & Electronic Senior Engineer, China Jiuquan Satellite Engineering, National University of Defences Launch Center Technology in CHINA, 1998 Associate Professor, Beijing Institute of Meritxell Gimeno Tracking and Telecommunication Technology, B.Sc. Telecommunications, 1994 CHINA M.Sc. Electronic Engineering, 1996 PhD. in Remote Sensing, 2003 Clinton Clark B.S. Mathematics, 1998 Lamar University Sébastien Gorelov M.Ed. School Administration, 2000 Lamar B.S. Electrical Engineering, McGill University University, 2002 1Lt, United States Air Force Fleur Huang Alain Conde Reis MDCM, McGill University (Montreal, M.Sc. Electro-Mechanical Engineer, ULB Canada), 2003 Brussels 1992 Resident, Department of Family Medicine, Technology R&D Coordination Engineer, McGill University ESA/ESTEC Tatiana Isupova Charlene Del Mundo Engineer, Technology of Machinery Building, B.S. Civil Engineering, California State Izhevsk State Technical University, 2000 Polytechnic University, Pomona, 2002 Design Engineer, Science Technology Center Assistant Engineer "Voskhod", Izhevsk, Russia Tuba Eldem Shi Kelu BA Political Science and International M.S. computer science and technology, 2nd Relations, Bogazici University, 2001 Academy of China Aerospace 1987 MA International Studies (European Political Deputy Director; Department of Space Economy), The University of Birmingham, China Aerospace Science and Technology 2002 Corporation PhD student, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto Georgios Koutepas B.S. Electrical and Computer Engineering, Jorge Epifanio National Technical University of Athens, M.Sc Computer Science, University of Lisbon, Greece, 1996 1997 PhD. candidate in Computer Network Post Graduation E-Business, ISEG Lisbon, Management, National Technical University 2003 of Athens, Greece iv International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Jonathan Lenius Mikko Suominen B.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of M.Sc. Student in Engineering Physics, Wisconsin-Madison, 2001 Tampere University of Technology Spacecraft Systems Engineer, NASA Research Assistant, Optoelectronics Research Centre, TUT Feng Li M.S. computer science and technology, 2nd Yihua Tang Academy of China Aerospace 1986 B.S.Space Engineering, Scince and Director; Science, Technology & Quality Technology University of Natioanal Defence Department 1982 China Aerospace Science and Technology Master Degree, System Analysis, Science and Corporation Technology University of National Defence, 1985 Jian Luo Project Manager, CALT, China M.S. Mechanics, NanJing Astronautics and Aeronautics University,China Hideaki Uchikawa System engineer, Aerospace System B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Osaka Engineering Shanghai,China University 1997 Engineer, HTV project, NASDA Ulrich Mair M.Sc. Physics, University of Augsburg, Wenzhao Wu Germany 2000 B.S. Electronic Engineering, National PhD Candidate, Aerospace Engineering, University of Defense Technology University of Stuttgart / DLR German Project Manager Aerospace Center, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany Rachel A. Yates A.B., Stanford University 1986 Peter Martinez J.D., Boston University School of Law 1990 PhD, University of Cape Town, 1993 Partner in law firm of Holland & Hart LLP National Research Foundation of South Africa Dengyun Yu Jeph Mathurin B.S Solid Mechanics, Huazhong University of AAS Accounting Prince George's College Science and Technology 1985 1995 M.S Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, Venture Capital Senior Accountant/Financial Harbin Institute of Technology,1988 Controller 1996 to present Now Director of Institute of Spacecraft System Certified Public Accountant, USA 2002 Technology, CAST, CASC Rafael Prades Xuejun Yu Telecommunications Engineer, UPC, B.S. Physics, Nanjing Normal University, Barcelona, Spain, 1988 1981 Software Engineer, ESA/ESTEC--TOS-QQS, M.S. Environmental Hygiene, Institute of The Netherlands Space Medico-Engineering (ISME), 1990 Ph.D. Space Medicine, The Fourth Military Arthur Prévot Medical University, 2000 B.Eng. Mechanical Engineering, 2000 École Professor, Environmental Medicine Branch, Polytechnique de Montréal ISME M.Sc. Electrical Engineering, 2004, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Research fellow at Francesca Zoete Maglia Canadian Space Agency Degree in Chemistry, University of Catania, Italy, 1998 Avery Sen Masters of Analysis of Genome and Molecular BA in Science & Technology Studies, Cornell Modelling, University of Paris VII, 2000 University, 1999 Masters of High Studies in Industrial MA in Science, Technology & Public Policy, Relations, University of Nancy, 2001 The George Washington University, 2004 Research Assistant, Space Policy Institute

TRACKS TO SPACE

STUDENTS PREFACE

The 2003 Summer Session was held at the International Space University (ISU) central campus in Strasbourg, France. After World War II, the idea of European reconciliation led to the founding of the Council of Europe. Strasbourg was selected to be the seat of that institution. Strasbourg, the “Capitol of Europe”, was the backdrop and inspiration for TRACKS to Space. Our vision was to utilize a multidisciplinary and intercultural environment to produce a report that is Innovative, Inspiring, and Important (our 3I’s). In the true spirit of the city of Strasbourg, bringing the world together to work on problems of global importance.

TRACKS to Space was authored by 33 students and professionals from 14 countries with backgrounds ranging from law to business and engineering to medical. Fulfilling the ISU credo of the 3Is, International, Intercultural and Interdisciplinary the authors possess a wide variety of outlooks, experiences and opinions. The different perspectives acquired as a result of working so intimately with each other for two months will undoubtedly be our greatest reward for coming to ISU, and it has added invaluable richness to our lives and to this report.

TRACKS to Space would not have been possible without the direction, assistance, support and insight of many ISU faculty members, staff, visiting lecturers, alumni and newfound friends. Special recognition is due to Philippos Beveratos, Nicolas Peter and Ray Williamson who served as indispensable members of our team. For their insights, friendship, leadership and occasional nagging we are especially grateful.

We believe we have produced a document that brings added value to the international space community. It provides ESA, and the world, insight into the technological goals of four major space players. We are aware that this is only the first step towards a comprehensive analysis of space technology development around the world, but we believe it can serve as a stepping-stone for follow- on studies. Most important however, we believe this document strengthens the case for broad international cooperation on space activities. Our challenge to the space community is to find a way to work together through space for the betterment of all humankind.

TRACKS TO SPACE

SIGNATURES

vii

FACULTY PREFACE

Team Projects provide the opportunity for individuals of varied profession and educational backgrounds to work together in an international setting on an important subject of inquiry. ISU challenges its Summer Session participants to complete their chosen Team Project in compressed period. Despite varied experience and cultural backgrounds, ISU students quickly learn to organize themselves into sub teams in order to complete a report that may have influence beyond their summer experience.

This study, which was requested by the European Space Agency (ESA), provided an excellent opportunity for Summer Session participants to contribute their skills, expertise, and ingenuity to a substantial project. In order to complete this report within the few weeks allotted, they rapidly overcame barriers of language and differences of culture and work style. We expect that this report will serve as a model for similar studies on additional countries that will broaden the scope of this effort.

We, their teaching associate and faculty members, commend this report to the reader. Not only did these ISU students complete the tasks requested by ESA, they added substantial value to the report by analyzing three case studies of international cooperation that span many of the technologies examined in the report’s technology tables. We are pleased and privileged to have been associated with these talented, energetic and dedicated individuals.

______Nicolas Peter Ray Williamson Philippos Beveratos First Half Co-Chair Second Half Co-Chair Teaching Associate

viii International Space University, SSP03

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF AUTHORS iv STUDENTS PREFACE vi SIGNATURES vii FACULTY PREFACE viii ACRONYMS xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context of the ISU Team Project on Space Technology 1.1 1.2 Definition of the Team Project 1.1 1.2.1 Methodology 1.2 1.2.2 Scope and Limitations 1.2 1.3 ESA’s Role Regarding Space Technology R&D 1.4 1.3.1 Technology Management: Mapping, Dossier-0 and ESTMP 1.4 1.3.2 Harmonisation Process 1.4 1.3.3 Organisation and Coordination of Human Resources 1.5 1.3.4 The Report 1.5

2 SPACE TECHNOLOGY SURVEY AND ANALYSIS 2.1 Survey Process and Output 2.1 2.2 China 2.3 2.2.1 Introduction 2.3 2.2.2 Agency Organisation and Structure 2.3 2.2.3 Agency Strategy and Vision 2.5 2.2.4 Policy and Law 2.6 2.2.5 Agency Funding and Budget 2.6 2.2.6 Innovation Process 2.7 2.2.7 Key Technology Thrusts 2.8 2.2.8 Relationship Among the Agency and Other Groups or Institutions 2.10 2.2.9 International Cooperation 2.12 References 2.13 2.3 Japan 2.15 2.3.1 Agency Strategy and Vision 2.15 2.3.2 Agency Organisation and Structure 2.16 2.3.3 Policy and Law 2.19 2.3.4 Agency Funding and Budget 2.21 2.3.5 Innovation Process 2.22 2.3.6 Key Initiatives 2.24 2.3.7 Relationship between the Agencies and other Groups or Institutions between Japan 2.25 2.3.8 International Cooperation 2.26 References 2.28 2.4 Russian Federation 2.31 2.4.1 Agency Organizational Structure 2.31 2.4.2 Agency Strategy and Vision 2.32 2.4.3 Policy and Law 2.33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.4.4 Agency Funding and Budget 2.36 2.4.5 Innovation Process 2.39 2.4.6 Key Technology Thrusts 2.40 2.4.7 Cooperation Institutes, Research Centres 2.40 2.4.8 International Cooperation 2.41 References 2.42 2.5 United States of America 2.45 2.5.1 Introduction 2.45 2.5.2 Agency Organisation and Structure 2.46 2.5.3 Agency Strategy and Vision 2.47 2.5.4 Policy and Law 2.48 2.5.5 Agency and Budget Funding 2.52 2.5.6 Innovation Process 2.54 2.5.7 Key Initiatives 2.56 2.5.8 Relationship between the Agencies and Other Groups or Institutions 2.57 2.5.9 International Cooperation 2.59 References 2.61 2.6 Comparison of Surveyed Countries 2.66 2.6.1 Budgets 2.66 2.6.2 Innovation Processes 2.66 2.6.3 Key Missions and Related Technologies 2.67 2.6.4 International Cooperation 2.70 2.6.5 Technology Survey – Discussing the Survey Data 2.71 References 2.72

3 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION CONTEXT 3.1 Framework for International Cooperation in Space Activities 3.1 3.2 Survey of Legal Framework for Space Activities 3.2 3.2.1 International Law and the Framework for Cooperation 3.2 3.2.2 International Legal Framework of Technology Controls 3.4 3.2.3 Forms of Space Cooperation 3.6 References 3.9

4 CASE STUDIES FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SPACE 4.1 Rationale for the Case Studies and Case Study Selection 4.1 4.2 Case Study A - Simulation Facilities 4.1 4.2.1 Introduction 4.1 4.2.2 Risk Assessment 4.3 4.2.3 Capability Analysis 4.8 4.2.4 Legal and Political 4.10 4.2.5 Cooperation 4.11 References 4.12 4.3 Case Study B – World Space Observatory 4.12 4.3.1 World Space Observatory 4.12 4.3.2 WSO/UV Technology Domains and Sub-Domains Required 4.14 4.3.3 Cooperation Potentials and Legal Aspects 4.17 4.3.4 Proposed Cooperation Potentials for United States and Japan 4.18 References 4.19 4.4 Case Study C – Humanitarian Application: Enabling Integrated and Coordinated Use of x International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Space Technologies for Refugee Camps 4.19 4.4.1 Background 4.20 4.4.2 Instruments of Change 4.22 4.4.3 Summary 4.27 References 4.27

5 SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Introduction 5.1 5.2 Main Findings 5.1 5.3 Recommendations 5.3

APPENDICES Survey Data for China A.1 Survey Data for Japan A.7 Survey Data for Russia A.19 Survey Data for USA A.26

TRACKS TO SPACE

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Technology Survey Process 1.3 Figure 1.2: ESA’s Space Technology Harmonisation Process 1.4

Figure 2.1: Organisation of the Chinese Space Institutions 2.4 Figure 2.2: Budget Evolution in China Space programme. 2.7 Figure 2.3: Innovation process flow (long and short term) 2.8 Figure 2.4: China Space Programme Willingness to Cooperate with Other Countries 2.13 Figure 2.5: Current Space Development Structure in Japan 2.16 Figure 2.6: NASDA Organisation 2.17 Figure 2.7: ISAS Organisation 2.18 Figure 2.8: NAL Organisation 2.18 Figure 2.9: JAXA Organisation Chart 2.19 Figure 2.10: Structure of the Space Sector of RASA 2.31 Figure 2.11: Organisation of Russian Space Activities 2.33 Figure 2.12: Evolution of the Russian Civilian Space Budget 2.38 Figure 2.13: NASA’s placement in the federal government. 2.46 Figure 2.14: NASA organisation chart. 2.47 Figure 2.15: United States Export Policy Regime 2.51

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: 2002 Level of Funding 2.21 Table 2.2: Recent and Future International Cooperation through ISAS 2.28 Table 2.3: Deduced Amounts of Funding for the Civilian Space Programme 2.37 Table 2.4: Russian Commercial Space activities 2.39 Table 2.5: Involvement of Governmental Agencies in Space Activities 2.49 Table 2.6: FY2004 Agency Budget Summary Table. 2.53 Table 2.7: Estimated Entire Civil Space Budget for 2002. 2.66 Table 2.8: Indication of Significant Country Activities 2.67 Table 2.9: Solar System Exploration: Future Mission Destinations 2.68 Table 2.10: Technology Domains for Each Country 2.69 Table 2.11: Human Space Flight Service Areas 2.69

Table 4.1: Model for understanding cooperation potentials. 4.2 Table 4.2: Political risk analysis figures used in case study. 4.4 Table 4.3: Political risk analysis of ESA’s potential partners ranked 1-16. 4.5 Table 4.4: Funding risk analysis of ESA’s potential partners ranked 1-16. 4.5 Table 4.5: Technical risk analysis of ESA’s potential partners ranked 1-16. 4.6 Table 4.6: Overall risk analysis of ESA’s potential partners ranked 1-16. 4.7 Table 4.7: Facility vs. capability assessment 4.9 Table 4.8: WSO Technology Domains and Technology Sub-Domians - Country Contributions 4.14

ACRONYMS

ADEOS Advanced Earth Observing Satellite (Japan) ALOS Advanced Land Observing Satellite (Japan) ASCA Advance Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (US) CALT China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology CAMEC China Aerospace Machinery and Electronics Corporation CASC China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation CASIC China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation CAST Chinese Academy of Space Technology CEOS Committee on Earth Observation Satellites CNES Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (French Space Agency) CNSA China National Space Administration COMETS Communication and Broadcasting Engineering Test Satellite (Japan) COPUOS United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space COSTIND Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (China) CPI RAN Centre for Programme Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences CRL Communication Research Laboratory (Japan) CSA Canadian Space Agency CSTP Council for Science and Technology Policy (Japan) DA Decision Analysis DARPA Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (US) DASA Daimler-Benz Aerospace DELTASS Disaster Emergency Logistic Telemedicine Advanced Satellite System (ESA) DFH Dong Fang Hong (China) DLR Deutschen Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Aerospace Center) DRTS Data Relay Test Satellite (Japan) EC European Commission EO Earth Observation EO3 Earth Observing 3 (US) ESA European Space Agency ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ESTMP European Space Technology Master Plan ETS Engineering Test Satellite (Japan) EU European Union EUFOREO EU Forum on EO use for Environment and Security EVA Extra-Vehicular Activities FAA Federal Aviation Administration (US Department of Transportation) FCC Federal Communications Commission (US) FEI Institute of Physics and Energy (US) FGS Fine Guidance System FIAN Physical Institute of Academy of Sciences (RF) FPJSA Fundamental Policy of Japan's Space Activities FTI RAN Physical and Technical Institute (RF)

ACRONYMS

FUSE Far Ultraviolet Spectroscope Explorer FY Feng Yun (China) FY Fiscal Year GAISH State Astronomical Institute (RF) GIMU Geographic Information and Mapping Unit GIS Geographic Information System GLONASS Global Navigation Satellite System (RF) GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (EU) GMPCS Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite GNP Gross National Product GPS Global Positioning System HST Hubble Space Telescope (US/ESA) IACG Inter-Agency Consultative Group for Space Sciences IDNDR International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction IEOS International Earth Observation System IFRC International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent IGS Information Gathering Satellite (Japan) IHFSPO International Human Frontier Science Program Organisation IKI RAN Institute of Space Research (RF) IMBP Institute of Medical and Biological Problems (RF) IMP Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences IMSPG International Microgravity Strategic Planning Group IPC Industrial Policy Committee (ESA) IPF RAN Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences IPG Institute of Applied Geophysics (RF) IPRAN Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences IRTS Infrared Telescope in Space (Japan) IRTS/SFU Infrared Telescope Satellite/Space Flyer Unit (Japan) ISAS Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (Japan) ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction ISLSWG International Space Life Sciences Working Group ISS International Space Station ISU International Space University ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations ITER International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor ITS Intelligent Transport System (Japan) JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency JEM Japanese Experiment Module JEMRMS Japanese Experiment Module Remote Manipulator System JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory (US) JWST James Webb Space Telescope (US) L1 Earth-Sun Lagrange-1 point L2 Earth-Sun Lagrange-2 point xii International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

LDCM Landsat Data Continuity Mission (US) LEO Low Earth Orbit LHC Large Hadron Collider (EU) METI Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (Japan) MEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Japan) MITI Ministry of International Trade and Industry MOU Memoranda of Understanding MSF Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) MSRS Multi-Spectral High Resolution Sensor MTCR Missile Technology Control Regime NAIC NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts NAL National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration (US) NASDA National Space Development Agency of Japan NeXT New X-ray Telescope NGO Non-Government Organization NMP New Millennium Program (US) NNPT Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (US) NSBRI National Space Biomedical Research Institute (US) NWWG National WSO Working Group OBDH/AOCS On-Board Data Handling/Attitude and Orbit Control System OMB Office of Management and Budget (US) OOSA Office for Outer Space Affairs (UN) OSP Orbital Space Plane (US) PNT Position-Navigation-Timing PSA Programme on Space Applications R&D Research and Development R&T Research and Technology RASA Russian Aviation and Space Agency RASA Rosaviakosmos (Russian Aviation and Space Agency) RF Russian Federation RIAME Russian Institute of Applied Mechanics and Electrodynamics RS Remote Sensing RSC Russian Space Corporation RTTC Russian Technology Transfer Centre S&T Science and Technology SAC Space Activities Commission (Japan) SBIR Small Business Innovation Research (US) SEES Space Environments and Effects System (Japan) SJ Shi Jian (China) SPICA Space Infrared Telescope for Cosmology and Astrophysics (Japan) SSP Summer Session Program ST5 Space Technology 5

xiii

ACRONYMS

ST6 Space Technology 6 STScI Space Telescope Science Institute (US) STTR Small Business Technology Transfer Programs (US) TD Technology Domain TG Technology Group TMSAT Thai Microsatellite TRACKS Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing TRMM Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (US/Japan) TSD Technology Sub-Domain TT&C Telemetry, Tracking and Command UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNISPACE United Nations Conferences on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space US/USA United States USD United States Dollars USGS United States Geological Survey USOS United States On-orbit Segment UV Ultraviolet VBLI Very Long Baseline Interferometry VHF/UHF Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency VSAT Very Small Aperture Terminal WBS Work Breakdown Structure WIC WSO/UV Implementation Committee WINDS Wideband InterNetworking Engineering Test and Demonstration Satellite (Japan) WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction WMO World Meteorological Organization WSO/UV World Space Observatory/Ultra Violet ZY Zi Yuan (China)

xiv International Space University, SSP03

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing

TRACKS to Space is a pilot project to perform a survey and mapping of the space technology Research & Development (R&D) efforts and innovation processes among the space agencies of several major space-faring nations. The project was realised at the International Space University’s 2003 Summer Session Programme under contract to the European Space Agency. The resulting survey, made across countries and presented in a common format, was also used to understand and assess cooperation potentials in the context of three illustrative case studies. This two-step process is depicted schematically below. Step 1 comprises the survey and mapping and step 2 comprises identifi cation of cooperation potentials and barriers through case studies . This report illustrates ways in which technology mapping may be used as an operational tool for space agencies to develop interinter-agency-agency cooperation in space technology R&D.

PILOT PROJECT - Survey and Map TechnologyTechnology R&D and Innovation ProcessesProcesses of Space Agencies - Identify Potentials for Inter-AgencyInter-Agency Cooperation on Space TechnologyTechnology R&D

Key Outputs ⇒ a common format for side-by-side ESA Technology Harmonisation Process comparisons of technology, innovation, policy & legal data across countries; ⇒ a tool for assessment of cooperation potentials; ⇒ a valuable database to identify spin-in opportunities and initiatives.

Chalenges: China Japan Russia U.S.A ESA ⇒ diffi cult to obtain comprehensive, Space Space Space Space Step 2: Technology Technology Technology Technology CASE STUDY reliable data, without active support of Survey Survey Survey Survey the agencies concerned (not all data exist World Space Observatory in written form); Mission Simulation ⇒ publicly available data are distributed Humanitarian Applications across many different sources.

Recommendations: Step 1: SURVEY In order for this pilot study to become Mission Tables TIME FUNDING MISSION NAME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS DATA SOURCES operational, interested agencies should: FRAME ( & SOURCE)

This project aims at verifying Phase I HSFD is a high speed flight and technology necessary for the final http://www.nasda.go.jp Flight: Nov. ⇒ landing demonstration project to phase of the return of a space /projects/rockets/hsfd establish a cooperative knowledge 16, 2002 HSFD develop a future transportation transportation system (space vehicle), NASDA NAL /index_e.html Phase II vehicle for "safe and easy travel to and collecting related data. Flight: July 1, space". 2003 sharing forum; Technology Requirements Tables ⇒ establish and maintain common, TECHNO-LOGY TECHNO-LOGY TECHNOLOGY COOPER-ATION TD TSD TG TIME FRAME WHAT'S NEW?(R&D Requirements) MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP COMMENTS

Far Infrared Surveyor (FIS) is a photometer publicly accessible databases. optimised for all-sky infrared survey. Can Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & be operated as an imager or as a Fourier 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2004 transform spectrometer in pointed ASTRO-F / IRIS Instrumentation Physical Sciences Instrumentation mode.Infrared Camera (IRC) requires development of large format high- sensitivity Ge:Ga detector arrays. Country Survey - Space Agency Organisation X-ray spectrometer (XRS) utilises a micro- Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & calorimeter array of 32 pixels operating at - Space Strategy, Vision 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2005 60mK. An energy resolution of 10eV at - Agency Funding & Budgets Instrumentation Physical Sciences Instrumentation 6keV will be obtained across the array. - Space Policy & Law X-ray Imaging Spectrometer (XIS) will - Innovation Process and Technology R&D produce images and spectra of X-ray Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & sources in energy range 0.5-12keV. - Key Initiatives & Technologies 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2005 Comprises 4 1Kx1K CCD cameras and Instrumentation Physical Sciences Instrumentation - Relations among Agencies associated electronics. Each CCD is a front-illuminated frame transfer device. - Willingness to cooperate

TTechnologyechnology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 1 THE MISSION

The European Space Agency (ESA) plays a central role in the process of coordinating and harmonising European strategy and policy for space technology, facilitating a dialogue with the National Delegations, the European Commission, and Industry. The ESA Technology Harmonisation and Strategy process is illustrated below.

Technology Monitoring

ESA Technology Master Plan

National Agencies ESA European Technology Plans R&D National Agencies Data Space IPC Contracts Industry Dossier 0 Consoli- IPC Technology EU dation European Union Master Plan Technology Plans (ESTMP)

Harmonised roadmaps

Harmonisation

Technology Mapping

In this context, and taking advantage of the international character of the ISU, ESA commissioned an ISU study to complement its current work in implementing a space technology observatory. The goal of the study was to: • Perform a survey and mapping of space technology R&D and innovation activities and practices of four national agencies (China, Japan, Russia, United States); • Propose possible cooperation methods and activities in space technology developments between agencies.

The team’s mission, “to identify potentials for inter-agency cooperation on R&D of space technology” is an attempt to locate this technology survey within the broader concept of a two-step process:

Step 1: Survey The fi rst component surveys the space initiatives of the four selected countries, lists their main missions and technologies in a common format, identifi es their main space policies and strategies, explains how they handle innovation in space technology, and discusses how they relate to and cooperate with each other and with other countries;

Step 2: Case Studies The second component presents three case studies to illustrate how the survey data may be used with both existing and potential cooperation projects. The key idea is to use the survey to assess the case studies, combining both detailed technical data and international relations and space policy aspects to identify cooperation potentials and barriers.

This pilot project illustrates a process that can be used to survey other countries, including developing countries. It has the potential to be used as an operational tool for space agencies, both for assessing cooperation potentials in space technology and for identifying spin-in opportunities.

Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing 2 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 3 THE MISSION

ESA Technology Harmonisation Process

China Japan Russia U.S.A ESA Space Space Space Space Step 2: Technology Technology Technology Technology ESACASE STUDY Survey Survey Survey Survey

World Space Observatory

Mission Simulation

Humanitarian Applications

Step 1: SURVEY

Mission Tables TIME FUNDING MISSION NAME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS DATA SOURCES FRAME ( & SOURCE)

TECHNO-LOGY TECHNO-LOGY TECHNOLOGY COOPER-ATION TD TSD TG TIME FRAME WHAT'S NEW?(R&D Requirements) MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP COMMENTS

Far Infrared Surveyor (FIS) is a photometer optimised for all-sky infrared survey. Can Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & be operated as an imager or as a Fourier 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2004 transform spectrometer in pointed ASTRO-F / IRIS Instrumentation Physical Sciences Instrumentation mode.Infrared Camera (IRC) requires development of large format high- sensitivity Ge:Ga detector arrays. Country Survey - Space Agency Organisation X-ray spectrometer (XRS) utilises a micro- Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & calorimeter array of 32 pixels operating at - Space Strategy, Vision 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2005 60mK. An energy resolution of 10eV at - Agency Funding & Budgets Instrumentation Physical Sciences Instrumentation 6keV will be obtained across the array. - Space Policy & Law X-ray Imaging Spectrometer (XIS) will - Innovation Process and Technology R&D produce images and spectra of X-ray Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & sources in energy range 0.5-12keV. - Key Initiatives & Technologies 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2005 Comprises 4 1Kx1K CCD cameras and Instrumentation Physical Sciences Instrumentation - Relations among Agencies associated electronics. Each CCD is a front-illuminated frame transfer device. - Willingness to cooperate

China

China has established a wide-ranging space program, creating new technology and industry. China is capable of designing, manufacturing, launching and operating varieties of space systems. There is a long-term plan to advance new missions in space science exploration, communication, Earth science and human spacefl ight. The Long-March rocket group’s capability permits launching spacecraft carrying humans into Low-Earth orbit and satellites into low-Earth, geo-stationary and sun-synchronous orbits. China has an estimated yearly budget of approximately US$200 million.

China states that it will continue to strengthen the exchange and cooperation with all the countries in the world under the principle of equality and mutual benefi ts, peacefully utilize the space resources and the promote progress and prosperity of human beings.

Japan

Japan’s space activities are currently conducted by three organizations, NASDA, ISAS and NAL, with mandates for space infrastructure development, space science, and aerospace research, respectively. In October 2003, all three organisations will be merged into one body, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). JAXA will be responsible for conducting all of the space activities for Japan, from basic research through development and utilisation. In 2002, the overall budget for NASDA, ISAS and NAL amounted to US$1.58 billion.

Japan has pursued space activities since the 1960s. In the early years of its space development, Japan was on the receiving side of space technology transfer. Opting for the fast track to innovation by importing baseline intellectual capital was consistent with Japan’s post-war industrial policy of technological “catch up”. Today, Japan is a technological leader and endeavours to cooperate in the development of space consistent with its technological strengths and its role and reputation in the international community.

Space is considered to be on the forefront of innovative activity. R&D is conducted with the express purpose of meeting the social and economic needs of the country and exclusively for peaceful purposes. Japan’s philosophy is to explore, utilise and develop space through fundamental science and applied technology. The Japanese government’s Space Activities Commission (SAC) works to produce world-class space and Earth science as well as to cultivate new technologies and new industries. The SAC also identifi es civilian use and international cooperation as the two themes important in space development.

Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing 4 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 5 STEP 1: SURVEY

Russia The former Soviet Union placed the world’s fi rst satellite in orbit in 1957. The Russian Space programme spans most of the space activity sectors. However, the programme currently suffers from problems with the Russian national economy and has an under-utilised infrastructure because of the lack of funds. Compared with other space agencies, its budget is quite limited (roughly at US$300 million for 2003), but it additionally receives revenue from commercial activities. Still, it manages to have an impressive presence in the world space scene; following the loss of the space shuttle Columbia, Russia has provided the only available emergency return and resupply vehicles to the ISS.

Russia’s primary goals in space include: • Maintaining its status as one of the main world space powers; • Providing independent access to space for Russia; • Contributing to solving the social and economic problems of the country; • Helping in scientifi c, technical and technological development; • Assuring national security.

USA

The United States has a wide-ranging and sustained space programme that crosses many governmental agencies. The civilian space agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), was created in 1958. NASA has requested a budget of roughly US$15 billion for the fi scal year beginning in October 2003.

NASA’s visions are concisely stated: • To improve life here; • To extend life to there; and • To fi nd life beyond.

From its earliest missions, NASA has directed its activities to improving the quality of life through Earth observation and by studying the solar system and other celestial bodies. Consistent with its vision statement, NASA develops missions to search for life and life-sustaining materials in our universe and to better understand the origins of the universe.

In pursuit of these visions, the agency seeks opportunities to develop innovative technologies by working with private industry, research institutions, and universities. It has developed specifi c R&D programmes to benefi t small to medium- sized companies, and it strongly encourages commercial development of space technologies and services.

From Missions to Technologies

To derive the technologies mapped in this survey, the missions under development in each of the four countries were studied. Information on the missions was obtained from the internet, published documents and personal contacts. The information was compiled into a set of Mission Tables, which are presented in the appendices of this study. Altogether 85 missions were recorded. The missions were then examined with a view to identifying new key technologies or innovative use of established technologies. These technologies were classifi ed according to the ESA Technology Tree as per the Dossier 0 document. The 220 technologies thus classifi ed are presented in a set of Technology Requirement Tables in the appendices. Summary information regarding the technologies recorded in the survey is tabulated below.

Technology Domain China Japan Russia USA 1 On-board data systems 19 2 Space systems software 3 3 Spacecraft power 3 2 1 4 Spacecraft environment & effects 5 Space system control 1 3 2 6 RF payload systems 2 1 1 3 7 Electromagnetic technology 8 System design & verifi cation 1 9 Mission control & operations 1 10 Flight dynamics & precise navigation 2 9 11 Mission analysis & space debris 12 Ground station system & networking 13 Automation, telepresence & robotics 1 4 14 Life & physical sciences instrumentation 2 10 6 41 15 Mechanisms & tribology 2 6 2 8 16 Optics & opto-electronics 5 10 4 41 17 Aerothermodynamics 2 18 Propulsion 2 1 6 2 19 Structures & pyrotechnics 1 1 20 Thermal 1 3 21 ECLS & in-situ resource utilisation 1 1 22 Components 1 2 23 Materials and processes 24 Quality, dependability & safety 25 User segment 26 Application specifi c technologies

The number of technologies mapped per country in this survey. The Technology Domains are extracted from the ESA Technology Tree. The grey cells indicate technology domains for which no information was recorded.

Innovation Processes

In China, the CNSA identifi es technology requirements and issues short- and long-term open calls for proposals to develop the required technologies. In Japan, NASDA, ISAS and NAL each have their own innovation processes in the framework of the national Basic Science & Technology Plan. In Russia, Rosaviakosmos is both customer and supplier, prioritising technology areas based on the Russian Federal Space Programme. Independently of this, industrial companies may also conduct their own innovative programmes. In the United States, NASA supports both internal and external innovation processes, opportunities for small businesses and technology transfer partnerships. Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing 6 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 7 STEP 1: SURVEY

The Cooperation Potentials

For a variety of reasons, there is a growing interest in cooperation among all space players. This can happen only in a context that serves the countries’ political and commercial interests. Political issues determine the willingness to cooperate much more decisively than any technical problems or technology needs.

China Incentives for cooperation with China Challenges to cooperate with China • Cost-effective manufacturing • Space science programme limited to only a few • Launching and operating capabilities missions Incentive for China to cooperate Challenges for China to cooperate • Promote technical exchange and progress • Export controls • Technological benefi ts for its space programme

Japan Incentives for cooperation with Japan Challenges to cooperate with Japan • Commitment and innovation in areas of • Small space budget relative to ambitions and technological strength economy under strain • International cooperation is fundamental policy for • Differences among the 3 agencies; may take time space activities to fade after the merger into JAXA • Development of core infrastructure • Infl exible legal structures • Relunctant to participate in programmes associated with military activities Incentive for Japan to cooperate Challenges for Japan to cooperate • Cost sharing • Export control (domestic and international) • Geopolitical positioning • Differences in property/liability laws • Α sense of obligation to help developing nations

Russia Incentives for cooperation with Russia Challenges to cooperate with Russia • Mature and reliable mission enabling technologies • Weak economic condition may result in delays or • Mature and unique technologies in many areas suspensions of programmes (e.g. nuclear reactors in space) • Gaps in some key technology areas • Advanced human spacefl ight capabilities • Aging of specialists in the fi eld and of the infrastructure Incentive for Russia to cooperate Challenges for Russia to cooperate • Economic benefi ts • Russia seeks major role in big projects • Supporting Russian geopolitical goals • Compensating for existing technological gaps

USA Incentives for cooperation with the US Challenges to cooperate with the US • Advanced technologies, spanning all sectors • Documentation requirements • Expertise for conducting large-scale programmes • Delays due to export controls • Capability to transport payloads to orbit and return • Administrative and technological expenses them to Earth for analysis • Budgetary domination of NASA

Incentive for the US to cooperate Challenges for the US to cooperate • Time and cost savings • Export controls • Promotion of geopolitical goals • Insistence on liability sharing

Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing 6 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 7 STEP 2: CASE STUDIES

Three different case studies were conducted to illustrate the effects of cooperation among the four surveyed countries and ESA.

Case Study 1: Exploration Mission Simulations Across the major space agencies there is a growing realization that it is time to start preparing for the next major set of missions. Therefore, many are considering the possibility of human/robotic missions beyond LEO. The chalenge with these types of missions is their extreme complexity. Thus, current thinking has led to the idea of “fl ying the missions on the ground.” This means that, to the greatest extent possible, agencies will use ground- based simulation facilities to solve as many of the technological, operational, and scientifi c questions as possible in a low risk environment before trying to implement them during actual space-based missions. The case study team performed an analysis of the following items regarding ground-based mission simulators: • Capabilities offered to prepare for beyond-LEO missions, and what infrastructure currently exists that supplies these capabilities; • Risks involved with cooperation from ESA’s perspective; • Legal and political considerations when trying to cooperate.

The team found that a signifi cant amount of current or planned infrastructure would be useful in preparing for these missions. However, coordination of these facilities will be needed. The team performed a risk analysis that showed that the most benefi cial combination of countries participating in these simulations might be China, Japan, Russia, US and ESA because the benefi ts of having all these countries involved outweighed the drawbacks. In both the risk and legal analyses it became clear that one of the major obstacles might be the export control issue, especially in the US-China relationship. This is an area that should be explored more in depth in the future, but it is clear that for the present time, it is probably in the interest of ESA to help bringing these two entities together in order to gather their technical expertise and resources into the projects.

Case Study 2: World Space Observatory A consortium of countries is developing the World Space Observatory/ Ultraviolet (WSO/ UV). Argentina, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Russia and the United Kingdom are currently participating. Each one of them will contribute according to their interests and means. Russia is leading the implementation of this project. Japan and the United States (US) are not currently participating, but the team has identifi ed technology areas with such potential. This mission will afford scientists and engineers from the non-space- faring nations an exciting and unique opportunity to be involved in the planning and development of a space-based astronomy facility. Unlike most space missions that are developed by a single agency, or a small number of agencies, WSO/UV has been developed to maximize international participation.

The team found that the United States has existing and qualifi ed equipment and technology that could be utilised on the WSO/UV, particularly in the area of UV detectors. Japan also has technologies to offer, and participating in such an endeavour would align with their goal to strengthen their position in the international space arena. The WSO/UV would complement both the US and Japan’s current and planned capabilities in other wavelength domains.

Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing 8 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 9 STEP 2: CASE STUDIES

Case Study 3: Integrated and Coordinated Use of Space Technologies for Refugee Camps Refugee camps are an increasing, unfortunate feature of modern life. The use of space applications may increase the effi ciency and safety of existing ground-based humanitarian work. To utilise space-based technologies and space applications for refugee camps, there must be coordination among space agencies, relief agencies, and relevant inter- governmental bodies. However, none of the current international instruments includes refugee camps and humanitarian disasters within their scope. Some application domains where space technologies have successfully contributed to disaster relief efforts are remote sensing, positioning-navigation-timing, and satellite telecommunications. Space technologies can especially be used to improve refugee camp management, and to deliver health and educational services. The team identifi ed four actions to make space applications operational in refugee camps: • Challenge the space agencies to develop cost effective space technologies to assist in improving humanitarian disaster relief; • Create an international forum where various players may interact; • Create an implementation tool, or expand the current Disaster Charter to include humanitarian disasters; • Promote coordination and integration of space applications relevant to refugee camps. The greatest benefi t to humanitarian disasters would result from cooperation between the space agencies.

Lessons Learnt from the Case Studies

In all three case studies it was found that the greatest benefi t and lowest risk from ESA’s perspective would be realized through the cooperation and participation of all four space agencies. However, this is not necessarily the case from the other space agencies’ perspective. For example, each agency may have, the resources, expertise, and/or technology to complete projects alone, although each can benefi t from cooperation. Therefore, when trying to engage other agencies in a particular project, it is necessary to emphasize the points that align with each agency’s interest.

These case studies explored two cooperation models, “lead agency” and “pure collaboration”, and found that a model that tended towards the “lead agency” model would probably be most preferable. Having a lead agency would greatly reduce duplication, and ease coordination/management efforts. However, to keep all participants engaged in the activities, there could be benefi ts in having different agencies assume the lead position for different parts of the projects. This would also aid in reducing the risk associated with having any single agency assume all of the lead responsibilities. The cost of cooperation in these studies largely depends on the responsibility and legal liability framework. Agencies would need to decide and defi ne in advance the responsibilities they are willing to accept.

Finally, two of the case studies examined the issue of engaging developing nations in space activities. There are many ways in which our surveyed countries could contribute to promoting and fostering international cooperation with developing countries in their space activities. However, this type of cooperation needs to be done on an equitable and mutually acceptable basis. Contractual terms must be fair, reasonable, and in full compliance with the legitimate rights and interests of all the parties.

Recommendations follow on ways to harness the technology mapping process as an operational tool for space agencies to promote cooperative development of space technology.

Based on our experience in surveying the space R&D activities of China, Japan, Russia and the USA, we are in a position to offer the following insights on lessons learnt undertaking such surveys:

• Detailed information on space activities and space technology in English is not always readily available. Where information in English was found, comparison with the website in the native language revealed that the English content was not always updated. This problem was experienced to some degree in the surveys of China, Japan and Russia, and having members of the team fl uent in these languages alleviated the problem to some extent. Having access to native language speakers was essential for the progress of this pilot project; had there been more such persons to conduct internet searches in their native language, we expect that more information would have been captured. • The availability of information varies signifi cantly with technology domain. There is usually much more information publicly available for science missions than for application-oriented missions. For non-science missions, detailed technology information was often not found on-line. In this regard, contacts with experts in the various space agencies can greatly facilitate access to open, but unpublished information. • Agency budgets are well documented in public sources, but usually these sources do not contain much information on the budgets of specifi c missions, and practically no budget information on the technologies being developed for those missions. In the absence of budget information, agency programmes and strategic plans offer the best indication as to which key technologies are likely to receive the lion’s share of agency R&D funding. • The limitation of the study scope to national agencies means our survey may have missed relevant R&D conducted by other agencies involved in the space arena. Likewise, potential spin-in technologies under development in agencies not considered part of the space sector, have also been outside the scope of our survey. • If technology mapping is to become an operational activity, cooperative support from participating space agencies will facilitate information exchange and up-dating greatly. • Technology transfer controls continue to pose a strong barrier to direct cooperation in technology R&D. Such cooperations often take place at a mission level on the basis of barter arrangements that do not involve the transfer of technical know-how. Space science remains the area in which inter-agency cooperation is most readily pursued.

At present, much cooperation in space projects takes place at mission level, thus circumventing dual-use, export control and competition issues. However, the benefi ts of cooperation at the level of technology R&D should be assessed, particularly in view of the expensive and high-risk nature of space exploration.

Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing 10 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003 11 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Factors Shaping International Collaborations in Space Technology

International and multi-national cooperations in space technology are subject to a number of infl uences, such as: • Heavy dependence on the political situation between countries. These have a very variable nature and can change (especially deteriorate) in a very short time due to issues that can be non space-related. • Each country seeks to serve its own interest when entering into a cooperative arrangement. All the partners must thus have an appropriate incentive in order to commit to a project. • The economic situation of the various partners will also dictate the most appropriate roles in the development of a collaboration. For example, the purchase of readily available technologies from Russia under the right terms is probably benefi cial because it creates partnerships, saves development costs for the buyer and helps the survival of the industry for the supplier. • The changing world economic situation must be taken into account, as well as the problems that arise from over- estimating the capacity of a country to meet its fi nancial obligations to a long-term cooperative project. Funding cycles may be out of phase in the different partners, affecting the timing and levels of commitment. • Regulatory differences also dictate the technology content and form of collaborations.

Recommendations for Inter-Agency Cooperation in Space Technology

This pilot project has demonstrated the benefi ts of having information on technology R&D, innovation processes and organisational, policy and regulatory material all available on a common system. The process could be extended to other interested countries, including developing countries, to become an operational tool for the cooperative development of space technologies world-wide.

In order to become operational, the survey should be regularly updated and extended to other countries. A number of agencies are engaged in similar surveys and technology mapping exercises, duplicating each other’s efforts to compile publicly available information. It would be more effi cient for interested agencies to conduct such activities as a joint effort. Each participating agency would contribute information about its own activities, and in return, it would have access to the full spectrum of information for the other agencies. It is possible to envisage an Inter-Agency Coordination Group for Space Technology, which could serve as a forum for information exchange. There are already inter-agency forums in existence, such as the Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), or the Inter-Agency Cooperation Group (IACG) for space science. Another initiative that could be considered is the establishment of frequently updated, common format, publicly accessible databases of space technology.

“Space is the Province of all Humankind” Outer Space Treaty (1967)

International Space University Strasbourg Central Campus Attention: Publications Parc d’Innovation 1 rue Jean-Dominique Cassini 67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden FRANCE

Tel : + 33 (0) 3 88 65 54 30 Fax : + 33 (0) 3 88 65 54 47

http://www.isunet.edu

Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing 12 International Space University Summer Session Programme Team Project 2003

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context of the ISU Team Project on Space Technology

The educational philosophy of the International Space University (ISU) is based on a “3-I” approach, promoting Interdisciplinary learning in an International and Intercultural environment. The Summer Session Programme (SSP) of the ISU includes a team project where students bring their own backgrounds and experiences to the multidisciplinary and intercultural team and put into practice what they learned during the programme.

This year, for the first time, one of the SSP team projects was based on a formal request by the European Space Agency (ESA), thus providing the team with the opportunity to work for a real customer, with specific requirements to meet. ESA asked the team to: • Perform a survey of space technology Research and Development (R&D), innovation activities and practices of national agencies (China, Japan, Russian Federation, United States); • Perform a mapping of the technology focus of each of these space agencies; • Propose possible cooperation methods and activities in space technology developments between agencies.

The expected output was the identification of the critical technologies and related activities for each agency, such as: • Technology development processes; • Specific technology development activities; • Dedicated innovation activities; • Funding sources and volumes.

This project is an extension of the growing initiative from ESA to frame the space technology R&D efforts across its member states. Space is borderless, by nature, and past history clearly shows that any effort in developing a space programme tends to expand across borders.

The mandate of ESA, as defined by its member states, is limited to the European space industry and agrees with the various national space policies. ESA has no official mandate outside Europe; however, this had been seen as an advantage to ease first collaborations with many countries on specific projects, particularly in space science. In this context, and taking advantage of the international character of the ISU team, ESA proposed a study to complement its current work in implementing a Space Technology Observatory.

1.2 Definition of the Team Project

The multicultural and interdisciplinary team dedicated to this challenging project had to personalise the requirements given by ESA and ISU to tailor them into a meaningful assignment for the team. Very early in the project, it became clear to the team that the cooperation aspect of our technology research was a critical component. Starting with the results of our technology surveys from each selected country, the team wished to analyse and illustrate with real case studies how cooperation could be achieved given the current political, technological, and scientific opportunities, but also to identify the actual constraints of such cooperation endeavours. The team adopted a vision “to utilize this multidisciplinary teamwork environment to produce a report that is Innovative, Inspiring, and Important”, (referring to a self-tailored interpretation of ISU 3-I approach).

1.1

INTRODUCTION

The team’s name, “TRACKS to Space” (Technology Research Advancing Cooperative Knowledge Sharing) properly conveys the stated mission “to identify potentials for inter-agency cooperation on R&D of space technology”. The team adopted a logo that includes four hexagons representing the four subject countries of our research. Overlaid, a blue fifth hexagon symbolizes our customer, ESA. The hexagon shape refers to the characteristic geographical shape of France, where the ISU SSP’03 took place. The arrangement of five concentric curved lines is a tribute to Earth on ESA' s own logo. The five lines delineate four paths that merge with the thicker, fifth arrowed line. Illustrating the ideal of convergence and harmonization among the key space partner agencies’ as they use their technological development strategies to reach for the stars.

1.2.1 Methodology

The study was conducted in two stages: • The first stage consists of the survey of space initiatives on the selected countries, listing main missions and technologies. It also looks (1) at how space developments are organised by the national agencies, (2) what are the main space policies and strategies, (3) how innovation on space technology is handled, and (4) what are the relations and willingness to cooperate with other countries; • The second stage consists of three selected case studies, as illustrations of starting or on-going cooperation projects, which can be assessed across the countries.

The methodology proposed is to use the survey as a lecture grid to read the case studies, combining both detailed technical data with international relations and space policy aspects. From this exercise, we gained deeper understanding of the context of international cooperation and offered recommendations for inter-agency cooperation.

1.2.2 Scope and Limitations

The team faced many challenges while conducting this project. The tight schedule in which these SSP team projects are conducted forced the team to confine the project scope to four space-faring countries and to exclude commercial and military space developments. However, our process can be further applied to extend the survey to other countries.

The survey information collected is a snapshot of the situation in the summer of 2003. To remain a valuable tool, the information should be regularly updated. Although most space agencies develop technology surveys independently, a joint effort should be considered. Until recently, technology cooperation has been seen as a threat for economic and national security reasons. However, the tendency today is to consider exchange and cooperation as a developing and stabilising factor worldwide.

The team pursued the following objectives: • To identify planned civilian space missions of China, Japan, Russian Federation and the US; • To map the required R&D technologies of the identified missions; • To identify and describe the dedicated innovation processes; • To identify and describe funding sources and volumes of each national agency; • To develop approaches for potential cooperation among space agencies, based on identified gaps and overlaps in their innovative activities; • To present a project whose output could serve as a template for future studies and road maps with other countries.

The team used ESA’s definition of R&D technologies as follows:

1.2 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

The Figure 1.1 below shows a schematic view of the whole process, starting from the ESA technology harmonisation initiative to the countries’ survey data. ESA Technology Harmonisation Process

ChinChina JapaJapan RussiRussia U.S.U.S.A U.S.ESA Coordinatoa Space n Space a Space A Space A Step 2: rTechnology Technology Technology Technology CASE STUDY Survey Survey Survey Survey

Humanitarian Applications Humanitarian World Space Observatory ApplicationsWorld Space ObservatoryMissionMission Simulation Simulation

Step 1: SURVEY

Mission Tables TIME FUNDING MISSION NAME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS DATA SOURCES FRAME (€ & SOURCE)

This project aims at verifying Phase I HSFD is a high speed flight and technology necessary for the final http://www.nasda.go.jp Flight: Nov. landing demonstration project to phase of the return of a space /projects/rockets/hsfd 16, 2002 HSFD develop a future transportation transportation system (space vehicle), NASDA NAL /index_e.html Phase II vehicle for "safe and easy travel to and collecting related data. Flight: July 1, space". 2003 Technology Requirements Tables incorporates a simplified design and Aiming at high reliability and low cost, manufacturing process as well as TECHNO-LOGY TECHNO-LOGYintended to competeTECHNOLOGY comercially on COOPER-ATION om/ H-IIA upgraded avionics and engines (LE-7A NASDA TD TSD the world market,andTG easy to TIME FRAME WHAT'S NEW?(R&D Requirements) MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP and LE-5B).The avionics system is COMMENTS manufacture and easy to use html renovated to a data bus. It means that the structureFar of Infraredthe onboard Surveyor elec (FIS) is a photometer optimised for all-sky infrared survey. Can Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & be operated as an imager or as a Fourier H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) is underHTV is about four meters in diameter 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2004 transform spectrometer in pointed ASTRO-F / IRIS development by NASDA. HTV is theand a bit shorter than 10 meters in Instrumentation Physicalone Sciences of the orbitalInstrumentation transfer vehicles length. In othermode.Infrared words, its Camerasize can (IRC) be requires http://www.nasda.go.jp/proj HTV which are designed to carry suppliesexplained asdevelopment a container of that large could format high- 2007NASDA sensitivity Ge:Ga detector arrays. ects /rockets/index_e.html to the International Space Station accommodate a sightseeing bus. In the Country Survey (ISS). It will be launched by H-IIA process of developing HTV, therefore, it Launch Vehicle. is divided intoX-ray four spectrometer module (XRS) utilises a -micro- SpaceNASA-GSFC, Agency Organisation Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & calorimeter array of 32 pixels operating at Wisconsin Univ., 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2005 ASTRO-EII 60mK. An energy resolution of 10eV- atSpace ISAS, Strategy, Tokyo Metro. Vision Instrumentation Physical Sciences Instrumentation 6keV will be obtained across the array.- AgencyUniv. andFunding RIKEN & Budgets X-ray Imaging Spectrometer (XIS) will- Space Policy & Law produce images and spectra of X-ray Joint effort by Osaka Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & sources in energy range 0.5-12keV.- InnovationUniv., Kyoto Process Univ., and Technology R&D 14 Sciences B Support of I Analytical 2005 ASTRO-EII Comprises 4 1Kx1K CCD cameras and ISAS, MIT, Rikkyo Instrumentation Physical Sciences Instrumentation - Key Initiatives & Technologies associated electronics. Each CCD is a Univ., Eheime Univ. front-illuminated frame transfer device.- Relations among Agencies - Willingness to cooperate

Figure 1.1: Technology Survey Process

1.3

INTRODUCTION

1.3 ESA’s Role Regarding Space Technology R&D

1.3.1 ESA’s Mandate Related to Space Technology R&D

Since its inception, ESA has played a key role in the development of space technology in Europe. The objective of European space technology R&D is to ensure effective technological preparation for future European space programmes, and to enhance the worldwide competitiveness of European industries through leadership in specific areas. In May 1999, ESA’s Ministerial Council adopted a resolution titled ‘Shaping the Future of Europe in Space.’ This Resolution reaffirmed the central role of ESA in the coordination and harmonisation of European strategy and policy for space technology, and invited the Agency and other role players in the space sector to pursue the coordination and harmonisation of technology programmes. Consequently, ESA is playing a central role in this process through facilitating a dialogue among ESA Directorates, the National Delegations, the European Commission, and industry. The ESA Ministerial Council Meeting in Edinburgh in November 2001 invited the Director-General and Member States, together with other players in the space sector to: a) Pursue the programmatic coordination and harmonisation of technology programmes in Europe and prepare the European Space Technology Master Plan as a further step to the recently developed ESA Technology Master Plan; b) Define road-maps and harmonised implementation schemes for the development of critical technologies, involving industrial funding as appropriate; and c) Define appropriate measures to ensure consistency between the European Space Technology Master Plan and ESA’s industrial policy.

This process is depicted schematically in Figure 1.2:

IPC = Industrial Policy Committee

Figure 1.2: ESA’s Space Technology Harmonisation Process

1.3.2 Technology Management: Mapping, Dossier-0 and ESTMP

The first step in the compilation of a European Space Technology Master Plan (ESTMP) was the development of the European Space Technology Requirements Document. This input document, more widely known as Dossier 0, is intended to provide a complete view of envisioned European missions and their technology requirements. Dossier 0 is the first step of a process moving from a collection of technology requirements to space technology development activities coordinated at the European level.

1.4 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Voluntary inputs to Dossier 0 are provided by all ESA Technical and Programme Directorates, by the national delegations, by the European Commission, and by European Industry through Eurospace, European prime contractors and by other interested parties. The first version of Dossier 0 was issued in 1999, and updated in March 2002 and June 2003 respectively. A web-based tool for voluntary contributions and access to data facilitates participation in Dossier 0.

Dossier 0 is intended to serve as a reference tool for the generation of ESA, European Commission (EC) and national space technology plans. These plans form part of an iterative process that should lead to an increasingly convergent ESTMP. In addition, the ESTMP will identify technology gaps and overlaps, will highlight technology non-dependence issues, and will identify further harmonisation opportunities and priorities.

At the heart of the ESTMP is an on-line database of on-going technology activities in Europe. Technology domain, funding institution, keywords, and several other parameters can sort the database. As of this writing, some 1600 activities are logged in the database. Updates of the above documents are considered on a yearly basis, with a major evaluation and reissue every three years. The first version of the ESTMP was issued in November 2002, and updated in June 2003.

1.3.3 Harmonisation Process

The Harmonisation Process is a European-wide coordination process to bring into convergence the activities of ESA, the national agencies, the EC, industry, and academic institutions in the field of technology R&D programmes, in a manner that resolves existing gaps and overlaps. The process is based on the premise that dedicated public budgets for space technology developments in Europe will continue to be constrained and that consequently the resources for space R&D need to be better coordinated and prioritised. This suggests that space technology R&D should be increasingly financed through international cooperation, agreements and partnerships among space agencies, the EC and industry.

The harmonisation process takes into account the distributed capabilities and budgets in Europe to enhance the partners’ complementary abilities to meet common objectives. This process when countries exchange information and hold discussions on a common, coordinated approach for the benefit of European industry and its space programmes. ESA plays a central role in coordinating this dialogue. The process commenced in 2000, with the harmonisation of three technology areas. Three additional technology areas were added in 2001, eight in 2002, and ten in 2003. This process has involved the participation of 500 professionals, from 100 industries in the 16 delegations.

1.3.4 The report

This report is presented in three main parts: • The technology survey: an overview of the space initiatives in the four selected countries. The detailed technical data, consisting of organised tables detailing missions and technologies is placed in appendices; • The cases studies illustrating three examples of possible international cooperation in space; • The synthesis and recommendations for inter-agency cooperation.

Reference

1. Lascar, S., Guglielmi, M., Martinez de Aragon, A., Nati, M., Williams, E. and Maresi, L.: European Space Technology, ESA Bulletin 112, November 2002, http://esapub.esrin.esa.it/bulletin/bullet112/estech56_62.pdf.

1.5

International Space University, SSP03

2 SPACE TECHNOLOGY SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

2.1 Survey Process and Output

The survey conducted on space technology is divided into three sections. The first section is dedicated to the following aspects, for each of the four selected countries, China, Japan, Russia and United States: • Agency organisation and structure; • Agency strategy and vision; • Policy and law; • Agency funding and budget; • Innovation process; • Key technology thrusts; • Relationship among the Agency and other groups or institutions; and • International cooperation.

From this research, the team gained a good understanding of the space activities in the selected country and was able to better grasp the issues relating to inter-agency cooperation.

The second section, found in the appendices, consists of mission and technology tables. Dossier 0, ESA’s technology requirements document, was used as a baseline to define the data required by the survey. The survey was conducted by four dedicated teams using all the resources at their disposal: the ISU library, internet, faculty members and ISU staff, contacts in agencies and other sources. The ESA Technology Tree helped define the content of the tables. The first set of tables is called Mission tables and is meant to describe the major missions that each country is planning in the next years and that have reached Phase B. These tables include the following elements: • Mission name; • Mission objectives; • Mission details; • Time frame; • Funding (amount and sources); and • Data sources.

More detailed tables describing the technologies developed by the countries and based on the ESA technology tree include the following elements: • Technology domain; • Technology sub-domain; • Technology group; • Time frame; • R&D requirements; • Cooperation comments; • Prime contractor; and • Missions.

Finally, the third section compares the four countries regarding budgets, innovation processes, key missions, related technologies and international cooperation.

2.1

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Definitions The team used the following definitions while conducting their survey: • Technology: A manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods and the existing tacit and codified knowledge; • Support R&D: Activities aimed at the continuous improvement of technologies, processes and services; • Innovative R&D: Activities aimed at exploring new technologies, processes or services that could lead to new products or services; • Technology roadmaps: identify, evaluate and promote the development of collaborative projects within and between industries to fill technology gaps and/or capture technology.

The process developed to conduct this survey is meant to be an useful tool for the space agencies, and it could be broaden in scope and include other countries, additional missions and technologies.

2.2 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

2.2 China

2.2.1 Introduction

Since the birth of the Chinese space programme in 1956, China has gone through several important stages of development: arduous pioneering, overall development in all related fields, reform and revitalisation, and international cooperation. The Chinese space programme succeeded in 1970 when its first satellite was put into orbit. After more than 40 years of experience, China has now established a wide-ranging space program, creating new technology and industry systems. China has developed and launched 52 domestic satellites1 featuring a broad range of payloads, a human spaceflight program, and a telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) network consisting of ships and ground stations across the country.

Satellite payloads cover telecommunications, navigation and positioning, meteorology, Earth observation and space science. With a flight success rate of over 90%2, China has established a number of satellite application systems that yield useful social and economic benefits. The Long- March rocket group’s capability permits launching satellites to low-Earth, geo-stationary and sun- synchronous orbits. The largest launching capacity of the Long-March rockets has reached 9,200 kg for low-Earth orbit, and 5,100 kg for geo-stationary transfer orbit. China has successfully developed six satellite series: DFH (DongFangHong) telecommunication satellites, FY (FengYun) meteorological satellites, SJ (ShiJian) scientific experiment satellites, ZY (ZiYuan) Earth resource satellites, BeiDou navigation satellites, and small satellites series.

In 1992, China started its human spaceflight programme. Since then, China has 1) developed a crewed spacecraft and a high-reliability launching vehicle, 2) carried out engineering studies in space medicine and space life science, 3) selected astronaut crews (yuhangyuans) and, 4) developed equipment for space remote-sensing and aerospace scientific experiments. China has launched four uncrewed experimental spacecrafts, and the first crewed spacecraft will be launched by the end of 2003.

Up to now, China has conducted 70 launches, and has sent 79 satellites and 4 uncrewed spacecrafts into space, including 27 foreign-made satellites. China has set up launching sites in Jiuquan, Xichang and Taiyuan, which have successfully accomplished various launch vehicle test flights and launches of numerous of satellites and experimental spacecrafts.

2.2.2 Agency Organisation and Structure

Chinese civilian space programmes are directed by the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (COSTIND). Policy formation and day-to-day management are the responsibility of the China National Space Administration (CNSA). Figure 2.1 shows the Chinese organisation of space institutions.

CNSA3 is responsible for researching, formulating and implementing China's space policy and controls the civilian space programme R&D budgets. CNSA also coordinates international cooperation and technology transfer agreements. While CNSA decides on policy, two State-owned enterprises, China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) and China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), oversee a wide range of State-owned companies and institutes carrying out R&D and more straightforward commercial activities.

2.3

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

National People’s Congress

State Council

Chinese Academy of China Meteorological State Commission of Commissions/Ministries Sciences (CAS) Administration Science, Technology, and Industry for National - Ministry of Land and Resources Defence (COSTIND) - China Ministry of Information Industry

China National Space Administration (CNSA)

China Aerospace Science and Technology China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASC) Corporation (CASIC)

- China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, - China Changfeng Machinery and Electronics CALT (former CASC 1st Academy) Technology Institute (former CASC 2nd - China Academy of Space Technology, CAST Academy) (former CASC 5th Academy) - China Haiying Machinery and Electronics - Shanghai Academy of Space Flight Technology Institute (former CASC 3rd Technology, SAST (former CASC 8th Academy) Academy) - China Aerospace Architecture and Design - China Academy of Basic Technologies of Institute Aerospace and Electronics (former CASC 9th - China Jiangnan Aerospace Industry Academy) Corporation - Aerospace Chemical Power Technology - China Sanjiang Aerospace Industry Institute Corporation - Sichuan Aerospace Industry Company - Hunan Aerospace Industry Company - Xian Aerospace Science and Technology - China Hexi Chemicals and Mechanics Industry Company Company (former CASC 4th Academy) - China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC)

Figure 2.1: Organisation of the Chinese Space Institutions

Instituted on July 1, 1999, CASC is the main contractor of the Chinese space programme. This corporation has the capability to design, develop, and manufacture a variety of spacecraft, launch vehicles, and ground equipment. It is also the only corporation in China providing commercial satellite launch services to the international market through its subsidiary company, China Great Wall Industry Corporation.4

Within the CASC hierarchy, there are several research institutes and laboratories including the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), which developed and produced the Long March launchers; the Chinese Academy of Space Technology5 (CAST), which manufactured the DFH series of satellites, different scientific satellites (including small satellites) and Chinese human spacecraft; and Shanghai Academy of Space Flight Technology (SAST), which produces the Long March 4B and the FY satellite series.

CASIC, previously known as China Aerospace Machinery and Electronics Corporation (CAMEC), develops aerospace products such as payloads, ground segment facilities and techniques, small

2.4 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE rockets and micro satellites.6 CASIC includes the major research Academies of China: Changfeng Mechanics and Electronics Technology, China Haiying Electro-Mechanical Technology, China Space Civil Building Engineering Design and Research and China Solid Rocket Engine Technology.

Another important entity is the China Academy of Sciences (CAS). Founded on November 1, 1949, it is the country's highest academic institution and comprehensive research centre in natural sciences. Its main role in the national space programme is to research and develop payloads. Its institutes contribute to some components, instrumentation, and scientific experiments. However, CAS has contributed to the development of the scientific test satellites (SJ) and application satellites (DFH, FY, FSW, CBERS, etc).7 Under CAS, there are 5 academic divisions, 123 institutes, more than 500 science and technology enterprises, and more than 20 supporting units. CAS employs more than 60,000 science and technology personnel, including more than 15,600 senior professionals.8

2.2.3 Agency Strategy and Vision

The Chinese government has consistently regarded the space industry as an integral part of the state's comprehensive development strategy, and has supported the principle that the exploration and utilisation of outer space should be for peaceful purposes (non-military and non-aggressive) and benefit the whole of mankind. Chinese fundamental tasks are developing its economy and promoting its modernisation drive. The aims and principles of China's space activities are prioritised according to their status and function in protecting China's national interests and implementing the state's development strategy.

The goals of China's space activities are9: • To explore outer space, and learn more about the cosmos and the Earth; • To utilise outer space for peaceful purposes, promote mankind's civilisation and social progress, and benefit the whole of mankind; • To meet the growing demands of economic construction, national security, science and technology development and social progress; • To protect Chinese national interests and build up a national strength in space technology.

China carries out its space activities in accordance with the following principles10: • Adhering to the principle of long-term, stable and sustainable development and making the development of space activities cater to and serve the state's comprehensive development strategy. The Chinese government attaches great importance to the significant role of space activities in implementing the strategy of revitalising the country with science and education and that of sustainable development, as well as in economic construction, national security, science and technology development and social progress. Space activities are encouraged and supported by the government; • Upholding the principle of independence, self-reliance and self-renovation and actively promoting international exchanges and cooperation. China relies on its own strength to tackle key problems and make breakthroughs in space technology. Meanwhile, it gives attention to international cooperation and exchanges in the field of space technology. Self- renovation in space technology is combined organically with technology imports on the principles of mutual benefit and reciprocity; • Selecting a limited number of targets and making breakthroughs in key areas according to the national situation and strength. China carries out its space activities for the purpose of satisfying the fundamental demands of its modernisation drive. China selects a limited number of projects that are of vital significance to the national economy and social development; • Enhancing the social and economic returns of space activities and paying attention to the motivation of technological progress. China strives to explore a more economical and efficient development road for its space activities so as to achieve the integration of technological advance and economic rationality;

2.5

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

• Sticking to integrated planning by combining long-term development and short-term development, combining spacecraft and ground equipment, and coordinating development of space technology, application and science.

2.2.4 Space Policy and Law

On an international level, in 1983 and 1988, China acceded to four of the United Nations (UN) space treaties, except for the Moon Treaty. Chinese space laws are just developing, and most of those laws are administrative in nature, coming under the jurisdiction of the China National Space Administration, through the State Council.11 On February 8, 2001, the administration issued departmental regulations titled Administrative Regulation on Registration of Space Objects12. The regulations require the registration of space objects within sixty days after launch, with subsequent modification to the registration upon change in orbit, return, re-entry, or other orbital change.13

Additional departmental regulations were issued before the end of 2002, including the Administrative Regulation on Space Object, and the Administrative Regulations on Launching License for Civil Space Activities (which contains the Interim Measures on the Administration of Permits for Civil Space Launch Projects, dated November 21, 2002).14 The State Council also issued the Administrative Regulation on Liability for Damage Caused by Launching Space Objects.15 With respect to launch liability, China had already entered into a 1988 bi-lateral agreement with the United States. The Memorandum of Agreement on Liability for Satellite Launches between the Government of the United States of American and the People’s Republic of China requires China to take responsibility for certain launch liabilities that might adversely affect the United States.16 In particular, this agreement covers the cooperation between the Australian and Chinese governments.17 More recent administrative regulations apply this liability concept more broadly.

The State Council adopted its Telecommunication Ordinance of the People’s Republic of China, on September 20, 2000.18 The Telecommunication Ordinance covers both terrestrial support and satellite systems. For satellite systems in particular, it identifies the telecommunications resource as a limited resource including radio frequency, satellite orbit, and telecommunication network. 19 It requires the operator of telecommunications services to pay charges for telecommunications resources.20 The Ordinance further provides that the Department of the Telecommunications Industry may adopt the means of assignment or auction for these resources.21 Subsequent to the Ordinance, the Department of Telecommunications Industry has promulgated Provisions on the Administration of Establishment of Satellite Communication Networks and Setting Up as Well as Use of Earth Stations (June 21, 2002); and, Interim Measures for the Administration of Examination and Approval of the Landing of Overseas Satellite TV Channels (December 26, 2001).22

On August 25, 2002, the Chinese Government promulgated and published its Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Export Control of Missiles and Missile-Related Items and Technologies.23 The regulations restrict the export of space technologies that are contained on the Control List, promulgated at the same time.24 The regulations prohibit the export of technologies on the Control List without a license issued by the Foreign Economic and Trade Department of the State Council.25 The export controls can be enforced by the State Council under the Regulations, through the suspension or revocation of the license, confiscation of illegal income, fines, and criminal penalties.26

2.2.5 Agency Funding and Budget

The Chinese government operates on the basis of five-year plans. CNSA is responsible for the nation’s civilian space five-year plan, and is also in charge of the government space budget. There are no officially published figures about the Chinese government space budget. The government budget mainly supports Earth observation, satellite navigation, launch vehicles, planetary missions, human

2.6 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE space flight, and satellite bus development. With the commercialisation of space activities in China, some technology companies invest in space activities such as telecommunication satellites and small satellites. These investments will become one of the more important funding source of Chinese space activities.

Meaningful figures for historical or projected spending on the Chinese space programme are virtually impossible to obtain. In 1987, the Chinese Space program’s budget was estimated to be the 0.035 percent of the Gross national Product (GNP). Compared with the US (0.52%), USSR (1.5%), France (0.11%), Germany (0.04%), and Japan (0.04%), it was the smallest investment among the world’s space faring countries, which placed the Chinese space programme in a disadvantageous position. However, in the same year, the European Union estimated that China’s annual expenditure on space R&D (including defence) was in the region of US$3 billion. The US government estimates that China spends some US$1.35 billion a year on space, of which US$0.5 billion is directed towards civilian R&D. It should be remembered that these figures are only estimates.27 Euroconsult estimated that China's annual military and civilian space budgets (combined) totalled merely US$100 million in 1998.28

It is estimated that the Chinese government civilian space budget in the tenth five-year plan duration (2001-2005) is about US$ 1 billion.29 The investment for the space telecommunication satellites and small satellites is estimated at US$ 400 million during 2001-2005.

Figure 2.2 illustrates the budget evolution in the time frames where it was possible to find reliable information. As seen in the graph, the Chinese space program’s investment is very small. To raise the necessary revenues to continue the Chinese space program, it was decided to place the Long March vehicle family and satellite service into the international market. By taking this entrepreneurial approach, the Chinese space industry successfully shifted its orientation from the defense sector to the civilian sector. It has survived by its own efforts in a changing political climate both in China and in the world. In 1991 the Chinese space industry generated 80% of its total revenue from civilian products. Estimated 1Billion Budget (US$) ~200M 150M 100M 2002

1992 1998 2001-2005 Year

Figure 2.2: Budget Evolution in China Space programme.

2.2.6 Innovation Process

In the process of carrying out space activities independently, China has opened a road to development unique to its national situation and scored a series of important achievements with a relatively small input and within a relatively short span of time. Significant achievements have also been made in the development and application of remote-sensing satellites, telecommunications satellites, human spacecraft testing, and space microgravity experiments. The State Council of China elaborates space programmes for the next five to 10 years.

2.7

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

CNSA

Identifies technologies

Long-term open call Short-term open call

Proposals Proposals

Review Review

Sign contract 2 Sign contracts

Development & Development & Demonstration Demonstration

Figure 2.3: Innovation process flow (long and short term)

In the long-term plan, CNSA identifies the technology trend in which the Chinese space policy is interested and sends requests for proposals to all the research centres, universities, academies and corporations. These organisations prepare their proposals and CNSA decides which solution is better suited to achieve the space programme goals. The selected proposal is implemented by the proposing centre and a demonstration shown to CNSA. Figure 2.3 shows this innovation process flow.

In the short-term plan, CNSA prepares a detailed research guide that will be presented to a selected audience (specified corporations and academies) for proposals. After a rigorous review of all the proposals, one or two are selected for development. The selection criteria increases the competitiveness of the two organisations and obtains a high quality final product. Figure 2.3 shows this innovation process flow.

High technology developed in the space programme can give rise to the development of new space markets. In view of this, China has accelerated the transfer of space technology to other areas. To speed up progress, China simultaneously introduces state-of-the-art technology and concepts from other countries into China. For example, China has a joint project with Surrey Satellite Technology, Ltd., to develop small remote sensing satellites. In this way, new areas of cooperation with counterparts worldwide are created within the Chinese space sector, in addition to the commercial satellite launch market.

2.2.7 Key Technology Thrusts

Satellites

China has mastered satellite technology, achieving a high success rate. It has the capability of developing and launching geo-stationary telecommunications satellites independently.

2.8 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

The new satellite series DFH-4 will be used primarily to broadcast television programmes and for communications. Its improvements include a higher performing power supply and longer lifespan (up to 15 years) than previously achieved. Other innovations include the use of a universal platform that can be offered commercially and outfitted with different applications depending on the intended mission of the spacecraft.

By developing a new generation of meteorological satellites and marine environment satellites, China will make use of new spectrometers, radiometers, and radar-based observation techniques to observe the atmosphere, soil, vegetation, ocean, and water resources over a large area of the country.

The goal of the Disaster Monitoring and Mitigation system will be to conduct daily high-resolution imaging of China to track natural and human-made disasters. Before 2005, eight advanced satellites, including four 400 kg optical satellites and four 700 kg radar satellites, are planed to orbit in two planes to provide a round-the-clock disaster and mitigation monitoring. Those satellites would have a three-year design life. Data from these satellites will be provided to the various groups charged with responding to natural and manmade emergencies.

Mission Analysis

China has now completed calculating the coordinates and route that their first lunar probe will take on its history-making journey. CAST and SAST have been making advances in the design of the satellite's orbit, antenna, power supply, structure and temperature control. The first step is to launch lunar orbit satellites to obtain a three dimensional images of the surface of the Moon, to survey the environment of the lunar plains, and to analyse rock composition. The two agencies have developed CCD cameras, an imaging spectrometer, and a microwave radiometer. Next, China will make a soft lunar landing with a rover, followed by a soft lunar landing with a robotic probe, carrying out investigation of its surface and taking lunar samples back to Earth.

Launching Vehicles

There will be over 14 variations of the new Long March booster capable of placing between 1.2 to 25 tons into low Earth orbit and 1.8 to 14 tons into geostationary orbit. It is fueled by a combination of kerosene and liquid hydrogen and oxygen resulting in a clean burning engine that does not pollute. The rocket is intended not only to meet China's domestic launch needs, but also to compete on the open market with the American EELVs (Atlas V and Delta IV) and the European Ariane launch systems.

China has set up three launching sites in Jiuquan, Xichang and Taiyuan, which have successfully launched vehicles, satellites, and experimental spacecraft. Chinese spacecraft launching sites are capable of making both domestic satellites launches and international commercial launches, and carrying out international space cooperation in other fields.

TT&C

China has established an integrated TT&C network comprised of TT&C ground stations and ships, which has successfully accomplished TT&C missions for low-Earth orbit and geo-stationary orbit satellites, and experimental spacecraft. This network has acquired the capability of sharing TT&C resources through an international network, and its technology has reached the advanced level of the international community.

Navigation

China has its own positioning system, Beidou. The third Beidou satellite was launched on a Long March 3-A carrier rocket from the Xichang Satellite Launching Center in May, 2003. It joins the first two Beidou navigation satellites, sent into orbit in 2000. This launch is expected to aid the country's

2.9

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

effort to modernize its transport and telecommunications. The Beidou satellites function in coordination with numerous beacon stations around China to provide position accuracies of 20 to 50 meters, depending on the density of beacon stations in the area. Transmissions from moving vehicles allow the satellites to calculate their geographic positions.

The European Union (EU) and China have opened negotiations on the Galileo project.30 Chinese scientists and industrialists should contribute to Galileo. To that end, concrete projects should be launched both in the design of certain parts of the system, as well as the development of applications.

Crewed Spaceflight

The human spacecraft and launch systems of China have been experimentally proven through four unmanned flights. A spacecraft carrying human passengers will be launched before the end of 2003 (end of October, beginning of November). The Chinese crewed spacecraft and launch system have many improvements. Based on successful human space flight, China would like to develop a space station or laboratory.

During the test launch of Shenzhou 3, space scientists for the first time tested the escape system, which could save the lives of astronauts in case of emergency. The Shenzhou spacecraft consists of three major sections: the equipment module, the descent module, and the orbital module. China's astronauts, called yuhangyuans or taikonauts, will be launched into space inside the descent module. The orbital module serves as a work area and comes equipped with a variety of racks that can be outfitted with different experiments. Shenzhou 3, for example, carries a remote sensing instrument. It even has a small exterior porch upon which additional experiments or equipment can be mounted. When it is time to return to Earth, the crew will shut the hatch and then separate from the Orbital Module and the Equipment Module. Only the descent module will return to Earth. The Orbital Module is capable of changing orbit and could be used in the future as the basis for a small space station. 2.2.8 Relationship Among the Agency and Other Groups or Institutions

China's participation in international space cooperation started in the mid-1970s. During the last two decades or more, China has joined bilateral, regional, multilateral and international space cooperation in different forms, including commercial launching services, which have yielded extensive achievements. 31

1. Bilateral Cooperation: Since 1985, China has successively signed inter-governmental or inter- agency cooperative agreements, protocols or memorandums, and established long-term cooperative relations with a dozen countries, including the United States, Italy, Germany, Britain, France, Japan, Sweden, Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Ukraine and Chile. Bilateral space cooperation is implemented in various forms, from making reciprocal space programmes and exchanges of scholars and specialists, and sponsoring symposiums to jointly developing satellite or satellite parts, and providing satellite piggyback service and commercial launching service.

In 1993, a Sino-German joint venture - EurasSpace GmbH - was established, and a contract on the development and manufacture of the communications satellite Sinosat-1 was signed with Daimler- Benz Aerospace (DASA) and Aerospatiale in 1995. Sinosat-1, which was successfully launched in 1998, was the first cooperative project on satellite development between the Chinese and European aerospace industries.

The collaboration between China and Brazil (CBERS satellites series) on the project of an Earth resources satellite has made good progress. China successfully launched the first CBERS satellite on October 14, 1999. In addition to cooperation on already completed satellites, China and Brazil are cooperating in the areas of satellite technology, applications and components. The cooperation between China and Brazil in the space sector has set a good example for the developing countries in "South-South Cooperation" in the high-tech field.

2.10 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

In July 2001, ESA and CNSA signed the Double Star Cooperation Programme. Double Star follows in the footsteps of ESA’s Cluster mission, which is studying the effects of the Sun on the Earth’s magnetosphere.

British industry and academia are particularly active in communications satellites and small satellites. A joint venture between China’s Tsinghua University and Great Britain’s University of Surrey was created to build a constellation of 7 mini-satellites with 5-meter resolution remote sensing payloads.

China has proposed to contribute financially to the Galileo constellation in the amount of about 200 million Euros, which will help develop the system and foster confidence in other public and private investors.32

2. Regional Cooperation: China attaches great importance to space cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. In 1992, China, Thailand, Pakistan and some other countries jointly sponsored the Asian- Pacific Multilateral Space Technology Cooperation Symposium. Thanks to the impetus of such regional cooperation, the governments of China, Iran, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Pakistan and Thailand signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Small Multi-Mission Satellite and Related Activities (Thailand April, 1998). Besides the signatory countries, other countries in the Asia-Pacific region may also join the cooperative project, which has helped to enhance the progress of space technology and space application in the Asia-Pacific region.

3. Multilateral Cooperation: In June 1980, China dispatched an observer delegation to the 23rd Meeting of United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOS) for the first time, and on November 3, 1980, China became a member country of the committee. Since then, China has participated in all the meetings of UN COPUOS and the annual meetings held by its Science, Technology and Law Sub-committee. In 1983 and 1988, China acceded to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, and Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, and has strictly performed its responsibilities and obligations.

China supports and has participated in the UN space applications programme. Since 1988, China has provided other developing countries every year with scholarships for long-term space technology training. In 1994, together with the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), China hosted in Beijing the first Asian-Pacific regional Ministerial Conference on Space Applications for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific, and the Beijing Declaration issued after the conference has had a far-reaching influence. In September 1999, in collaboration with the UN and ESA, the Chinese government held in Beijing the Symposium on Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Development with Space Applications. From July to August 2000, together with the Office for Outer Space Affairs (OOSA) of the UN and ESCAP, relevant departments of the Chinese government instituted the Short-term Training Course for Asia-Pacific Multilateral Cooperation in Space Technology and Applications. Trainees from 10 developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region attended the course.

The presence of space debris is a major challenge to further expansion of space activities. The relevant departments in China pay great attention to the problem, and have carried out research on this issue with related countries since the beginning of the 1980s. In June 1995, CNSA joined the Inter- Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. China will continue to make efforts to explore, together with other countries, ways and means to mitigate and reduce space debris, and promote international cooperation on this issue.

2.11

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

In addition, China has participated in multilateral cooperative projects, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites, World Weather Monitoring, UN Decade of Disaster Mitigation, and International Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

4. Commercial Launching Service: Since the Chinese government made the declaration in 1985 that China's Long March launching vehicles would serve the international market and provide international satellite launching service, China has successfully launched 27 foreign-made satellites for users in Pakistan, Australia, Sweden, the United States, the Philippines, as well as domestic users. The service of Long March launching vehicles in the international satellite launching market is a beneficial supplement to international commercial satellite launching services, and it has provided foreign clients with new options at competitive prices.

2.2.9 International Cooperation

The Chinese government will continue to render support to international exchanges and cooperation (see Figure 2.4) in space technology, space applications and space science, with priority being given to cooperation in the following areas: • Actively enhancing multilateral cooperation in space technology and applications in the Asian-Pacific region, and promoting regional economic growth and environmental and natural calamity monitoring with space technology; • Supporting Chinese space enterprises to participate in international space commercial launching services in line with the principles of equality, equity and reciprocity; • Giving support to using China's space technology and space application technology to carry out cooperation with other developing countries and provide services to cooperating countries on the basis of mutual benefit; • Supporting international exchanges and cooperation in earth environment monitoring, space environmental exploration, and studies of micro-gravity science, space physics and space astronomy, particularly international exchanges and cooperation in micro-gravity fluid physics, space materials science, space life science and space biology. China - US Space Cooperation

On a small scale, both countries have participated in some space projects that do not require exchange of technologies, such as climate research. However, on a larger scale, the U.S. government has consistently stated to China that any new cooperation between NASA and CNSA is predicated on China's adopting more stringent export controls, to resolve US concerns about their export of technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons or missiles. Nevertheless, China would like to participate in the ISS programme to increase its international profile.

The key policy issues to be handled between the two nations are the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT). If such issues are successfully addressed, a dialogue could be established between US and China on potential civil space cooperation.

China - ESA Space Cooperation

As China progresses towards undertaking human space programmes, it is likely to have a major impact on its space relations with the ESA.33 In July 2001, ESA and CNSA signed a joint agreement to develop Double Star mission. It was designed to promote reciprocal cooperation between space scientists in Europe and China, and also to pave the way for future comprehensive collaboration between the two agencies. China has also proposed to contribute financially to the Galileo constellation, a global navigation satellite system, which will provide a highly accurate, guaranteed global positioning service under civilian control.

2.12 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

On the commercial side, in September 2002, Alcatel signed a contract with CAST for the development and construction of a new telecommunications satellite. This partnership will allow both contractors to develop the first high capacity Chinese telecommunications satellite. Alcatel will provide some payload modules to CAST.

ISS ESA US India Russia

China Space Program Japan Brazil

Figure 2.4: China Space Programme Willingness to Cooperate with Other Countries (The thicker the arrow the greater the cooperation.)

China - Russia Space Cooperation

Since 2002, Russia and China have significantly intensified cooperation in piloted space flights. Relations with China constitute the most important factor in Russian foreign policy strategy today. Russia discreetly provided assistance to China in its bid to become a space faring power.

China and Russia have defined the direction of their future cooperation in space exploration and set down a new cooperation project in Beijing (August 30, 2003). The agreement was reached at the fourth meeting of the Astronavigation Sub-committee with the Joint Commission for the Regular Meetings of Heads of Government of China and Russia. The meeting also reviewed the achievements made by the sub-committee with support from the two governments since the establishment of the committee.

China – India Space Cooperation

The two countries have agreed to strengthen economic ties, including resumption of direct flights between Beijing and New Delhi and have signed an important memorandum of understanding for cooperation in space, science and technology.34 They are firmly opposed both to introduction of weapons in outer space and the use or threat of force against space-based objects, and they support cooperation in development of space technology for peaceful purposes. Both countries have expressed an interest in crewed spacecraft and lunar missions, creating a potential space race between both countries.

China– Japan Space Cooperation

The two countries have no cooperation programme on space at this time. In commercial areas, the space industries of the two countries still cooperated in some space technologies such as communication satellites and meteorological satellites.

References

1 http://army.tom.com/Archive/1019/1021/2003/5/26-34784.html 2 http://www.spacechina.com 3 http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/about_cnsa.htm http://english.cas.ac.cn/english/page/about_03.htm

2.13

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

http://english.cas.ac.cn/english/page/home.asp http://english.cas.ac.cn/english/page/about.htm 4 http://www.sinodefence.com/space/facility/casc.asp 5 http://www.cascgroup.com.cn/cascintro-e.htm http://www.cascgroup.com.cn/cascintro-e.htm 6 http://www.sinodefence.com/space/facility/casic.asp 7 http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/china/agency/cas.htm 8 http://www.sinodefence.com/space/facility/spaceagency.asp 9 White Paper 2000 from the Chinese government 10 White Paper 2000 from the Chinese government 11 Liu, X. and Wang, X, The First Administrative Regulation on Space Activities in China, pp. 150-51, United Nations International Institute of Space Law Workshop on “Capacity Building in Space Law”, 18-22 November 2002. 12 Liu, X. and Wang, X, The First Administrative Regulation on Space Activities in China, p. 151, United Nations International Institute of Space Law Workshop on “Capacity Building in Space Law”, 18-22 November 2002. 13 Liu, X. and Wang, X, The First Administrative Regulation on Space Activities in China, p. 152, United Nations International Institute of Space Law Workshop on “Capacity Building in Space Law”, 18-22 November 2002. 14 www.lawinfo.china.com at http://211.100.18.63:81/DataBase/LawRegulation/index.asp, (“launch” search term), August 20, 2003. 15 Liu, X. and Wang, X, The First Administrative Regulation on Space Activities in China, p. 151, United Nations International Institute of Space Law Workshop on “Capacity Building in Space Law”, 18-22 November 2002; www.lawinfo.china.com at http://211.100.18.63:81/DataBase/LawRegulation/index.asp, August 20, 2003. 16 The Memorandum of Agreement on Liability for Satellite Launches between the Government of the United States of American and the People’s Republic of China, 1988, http://www.oosa/unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/multi_bi/china_usa_001.html, August 19, 2003. 17 The Memorandum of Agreement on Liability for Satellite Launches between the Government of the United States of American and the People’s Republic of China, 1988, http://www.oosa/unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/multi_bi/china_usa_001.html, August 19, 2003. 18 The Telecommunication Ordinance of the People’s Republic of China, September 20, 2000, http://211.100.18.63:81/Legislation/display/content.asp?id=46, August 20, 2003. 19 The Telecommunication Ordinance of the People’s Republic of China, September 20, 2000, p. 3, http://211.100.18.63:81/Legislation/display/content.asp?id=46, August 20, 2003. 20 The Telecommunication Ordinance of the People’s Republic of China, September 20, 2000, p. 3, http://211.100.18.63:81/Legislation/display/content.asp?id=46, August 20, 2003. 21 The Telecommunication Ordinance of the People’s Republic of China, September 20, 2000, p. 3, http://211.100.18.63:81/Legislation/display/content.asp?id=46, August 20, 2003. 22 www.lawinfochina.com at http://211.100.18.63:81/DataBase/LawRegulation/Index.asp, August 20, 2003 (“satellite” search term). 23 Full Text of China’s Regulations on Export Control of Missiles, Missile-Related Items and Technologies (August 25, 2002), http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/33977.html. August 7, 2003. 24 Id. 25 Id. at Article 10. 26 Id. at Articles 18-22. 27 Laurence Nardon, The world’s space system, Disarmament Forum, one 2003;FROM PAST DREAMS TO TODAY'S REALITY, Euroconsult, Eurospace, OECD, Space Log 1993, and World Bank; 28 http://www.spaceprojects.com/Chinese-space-program/ 29 左赛春,"九天揽月会有时：中国航天“十五”发展纲要", Dec. 30, 2001; http://www.people.com.cn/GB/kejiao/230/7756/7757/20011203/617655.html 30 Opening of EU-China negotiations on satellite navigation. Intervention of Mr Lamoureux. Director General, European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport 16 May 2003 31 China's Space Activities. The State Council Information Office, P.R.C. November, 2000 Beijing http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/fg_e.htm#4%20Space%20Technology 32 Opening of EU-China negotiations on satellite navigation. Intervention of Mr Lamoureux. Director General, European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport 16 May 2003 33 http://www.space.com/news/china_cooperation_030121.html 34 http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jan/24guest.htm

2.14 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

2.3 Japan

“…Japan should now take a new approach to its space activities in the 21st century. We should recognize the significance of space development and the world wide trend towards both civilian use and international cooperation in space activities. We have to play an active role in international space projects by improving the level of our space technology, and by pursuing the use of space from a global standpoint.”1

Space Activities Commission, Fundamental Policy of Japan’s Space Activities 24 January 1996

2.3.1 Agency Strategy and Vision

Japan, one of the leading industrial nations in the world, considers space to be on the forefront of innovative activity. It conducts R&D with the express purpose of meeting the social and economic needs of the country. Although Japan invests in intellectual capital to satisfy purely academic pursuits, efforts are more often directed toward real world applications that directly benefit individuals and industry. Japan’s philosophy is to explore, utilise and develop space through fundamental science and applied technology. The correct mixture and distribution of activities within these two poles is defined by the specific domestic and international situation of Japan as a nation. The Japanese government’s Space Activities Commission (SAC) works to produce world-class space and earth science as well as cultivate new technologies and new industries.2 Clearly defined, peaceful intentions underlie Japanese endeavours in space, whether exploring the universe, meeting domestic social and economic needs or engaging in collaborative relationships with other nations.

The SAC identifies civilian use and international cooperation as the two themes important in space development. In the Fundamental Policy of Japan’s Space Activities (FPJSA), the SAC has laid out seven basic policies: 1. Promotion of Creative Science Research and Technology Development, including efforts in astronomy, environmental monitoring, as well as the creation of technologies at an “international level”; 2. Encouragement of Development to Meet Social Needs while maintaining close contact with end-users; 3. Improvements in Space Economics to increase the benefit/cost ratio of missions and gain public support; 4. Promotion of International Cooperation by playing an active role in partnerships “appropriate to Japan’s position in the world”; 5. Well-Balanced Development of Manned and Unmanned Space Systems, the latter being performed within international cooperative efforts such as the ISS; 6. Development of Space Industry to ensure the role of Japanese manufacturers in the development of space; 7. Preservation of the Space Environment by avoiding the accumulation of space debris.3

In addition, the SAC delineates eight priority areas for space development in the FPJSA: 1. Satellite Observation and Earth Science 2. Space Science 3. Moon Exploration 4. Communication, Broadcasting and Navigation 5. The Utilisation of Space 6. Human Space Activities 7. Basic Satellite Technology 8. Space Infrastructure4

2.15

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

The FPJSA was originally written in 1978 and has been reviewed on a regular basis and revised according to domestic and foreign events. The last revision was issued on 24 January 1996.5 In December 2000, the SAC formulated FPJSA as the “Mid-/Long-term Policy of Japan’s Space Activities.”6

2.3.2 Agency Organisation and Structure

The Japanese space programme is an integral part of Japan’s larger science and technology goals. The Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP), a cabinet office under the Japanese Prime Minister, identifies space activities as an area of frontier exploration in its national strategy for science and technology. CSTP has the role of budgeting for all science and technology project requests – including space project requests – above ¥2 billion ($17.1 million7) per year or ¥50 billion ($427 million) over project lifetimes. CSTP has the further power to evaluate on-going R&D projects independent of the responsible ministry. All of Japan’s civilian space activities are conducted under the authority of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).8

Figure 2.5: Current Space Development Structure in Japan9

Within MEXT, the SAC determines the direction and form of space science and technology development. The commission consists of members appointed by the Minister of MEXT. An important role of the SAC is to advise the Minister on issues of space development and establish a “Basic Plan for Space Development.” The SAC then uses this document as a guideline to forge the “Space Development Plan,” outlining the programmes to be undertaken. This process has a yearly iteration.10 Japan’s space programme is presently housed within three organisations: NASDA, ISAS and NAL – each with a different mandate. The SAC distinguishes between “development programmes” and “research programmes,” and allocates the programmes to one of the three organisations accordingly.11 Starting October 2003, all R&D and operations will be conducted by a single unified agency, JAXA, in the interest of organisational efficiency, but the overall space activities of Japan will not be qualitatively affected. An examination of current organisational practices should therefore prove relevant even after this transformation is completed.

2.16 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

The National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) is the largest of the three organisations. Figure 2.6 below illustrates NASDA’s organisational structure. NASDA was established in 1969 to promote the peaceful use of space and to develop “satellites (including space experiments and the space station) and launch vehicles, launching and tracking the craft,” as well as the necessary methods, facilities and equipment to accomplish this. NASDA is concerned with the industrial and social application side of space activities, for instance, with the H-IIA launcher and satellites for communications and meteorology. Over 1000 people work for NASDA at eleven offices, research centres and launch facilities within Japan and seven overseas locations. NASDA headquarters is located in Tokyo and its primary launch site is in Tanegashima.12

Figure 2.6: NASDA Organisation13

In contrast, the Institute for Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) has space science as its priority, including solar, planetary and cosmological exploration. ISAS was founded in 1964 at the University of Tokyo, but since 1981 has been a joint research institute for all the universities in Japan, drawing academic talent from across the country. The institute prides itself on an environment that fosters collaborative work between scientists and engineers within 9 research divisions and 2 technical divisions. ISAS has 7 research centres around Japan, including launch facilities in Kagoshima independent of NASDA. It operates with a permanent staff of over 300 in addition to over 170 postdoctoral staff members and graduate students. 14 The organisational structure of ISAS is shown in Figure 2.7.

2.17

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Figure 2.7: ISAS Organisation15

Finally, the National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan (NAL) specializes in the development of aircraft, rockets and aeronautical transportation systems. NAL was founded in 1955 as the National Aeronautics Laboratory, but was re-christened in 1963 with the addition of an aerospace division. Currently, NAL is conducting research on reusable space transportation vehicles. Over 400 people work for NAL at three locations: headquarters, one research centre and one airfield.16 Figure 2.8 illustrates NAL’s organisational structure.

Figure 2.8: NAL Organisation17

2.18 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

In October 2003, all three organisations, NASDA, ISAS and NAL, will be merged into one body, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Like the trio of agencies that preceded it, JAXA will fall under the jurisdiction of MEXT and the SAC. JAXA will be responsible for conducting all of the space activities for Japan, from basic research through development and utilisation. It will be sub- divided into directorates for space infrastructure, space application, basic technology research and space science. JAXA will also house the development group for the Information Gathering Satellite (IGS) system for national security interests (see section 2.3.3 Policy and Law).18 Figure 2.9 below illustrates the preliminary organisational structure of JAXA.

Figure 2.9: JAXA Organisation Chart19

Consolidation into a single agency is intended to eliminate the organisational and coordination issues that accompany a three-agency space programme. The goals are more efficient management and operations, the establishment of a more extensive network of users and associated industries, and a more flexible space programme as a whole. The doctrine of this merger is embodied in five principles: • Prioritisation of the functions of all space institutions; • Attention to basic technology; • Organisation for effective and efficient R&D; • Establishment of a firm scheme for conducting space science research; • Promotion of cooperation with industries.20

Japan will face a significant challenge in integrating the cultures of all three agencies – plus the non- civilian IGS development – into one organisation. Although the employees of NASDA, ISAS and NAL will all become employees of JAXA, perspectives of individuals and departments are unlikely to change quickly. Thus, it may be some time before the new agency begins to function in any significantly different way from the set of agencies it will replace.

2.3.3 Policy and Law

2.19

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

As stated in the FPJSA, Japanese activities in space are reserved exclusively for peaceful purposes. This conforms with Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, the Renunciation of War, which affirms that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes” and that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.”21 However, in Japan (as in the international arena), there are differences in interpretation of the word “peaceful.” It can either mean non-aggressive or non- military. Take, for example, the Information Gathering Satellite (IGS) optical and radar imaging satellite launched in March 2003 and the ISG-2 planned for launch in September 2003. The IGS system will be used to monitor possible threats posed by North Korea.22 The satellite system is non- aggressive, yet certainly strategic for national security purposes. “Peaceful” can also be interpreted as non-military, making Japanese space industries hesitant to participate in civilian programmes in other countries which have ties to military programmes, such as the Global Positioning System in the United States.23

Specific laws have governed NASDA operations since its inception in 1969. It is a government agency and utilises government funding, but issues investment bonds and is also a public corporation. Profit (from selling launch services, for example) is put into a reserve fund, while incurred losses are settled by reducing the size of the fund. For further sources of investment, NASDA can secure short- term loans with authorisation from the Prime Minister. It can loan, transfer or sell property that it owns, but must first receive permission from appropriate Ministries of the Diet. NASDA’s founding document also prohibits the launch of any space object unless it has entered into an insurance contract that will protect against the cost of any damages caused by the object. 24

Not much is known about the precise activities or organisation of the new unified agency, but the laws governing JAXA will be largely the same as those for NASDA. It will be a hybrid government body/public corporation with most of the funding originating in the Diet as approved by the Ministry of Finance. As opposed to keeping a reserve fund, though, any profit that JAXA makes will be put directly back into the National Treasury. Like NASDA before it, JAXA is also required to enter into insurance agreements for any space launch. MEXT and the SAC will still be the authority determining the agency’s path through consultation on long- and medium-term planning.25

Japan has export control laws that also pertain to space technology. These have been put into place to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but since many WMD technologies are shared with space systems these laws can unintentionally hinder international trade and cooperation in space. Since 1967, the government has had a policy of “Three Principles” restricting the trade of arms. Japan shall not export weapons to communist bloc nations, nations subject to arms exports embargo under United Nations Security Council resolutions, or nations that are engaged or likely to be engaged in international conflicts. 26 In 1976, Prime Minister Miki extended this policy to include the export of arms production-related equipment.27 Item 1 of the Annex List of the Export Trade Control Order includes equipment for launching ammunition or kinetic energy weapons in the definition of arms.28 Any kind of launching equipment, then, can be considered a dual-use (military and civilian) technology. In order to comply with similar international obligations, Japan maintains a list of controlled technologies including missiles, navigation and avionics equipment and propulsion systems.29 The Japanese Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Control Law specifies that the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI) must approve any export of “arms” or “arms production- related equipment.”30 It should be noted that Japanese law does not prohibit exports of “arms” or weapons technology to the United States.31

The legal system in Japan places more importance on written provisions than on precedent set by accumulated cases – a so-called Continental-style legal system. Japanese law is therefore not flexible over time and changes little with contemporary social attitudes, reflecting a cultural reluctance toward change. This legal inflexibility has hindered cooperation on space technology with other cultures. Cross-waiver contracts, which allow the parties involved in a partnership to waive the right to compensation for damages caused to each other, can make expensive cooperative space endeavors less costly. However, the right to protect one’s property is specifically codified in Japan’s National

2.20 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Property Law and cross-waiver contracts would seem to violate this fundamental tenet of Japanese democracy.32 This was a major hurdle to cooperation between NASA and ISAS in the early 1990s. In 1995, Japan and the United States entered into a general agreement on cross-waiver liability that has applied to subsequent Japan-US missions.33

2.3.4 Agency Funding and Budget

Under the Japanese Constitution, the national Cabinet has the right and responsibility to prepare and submit the budget to the legislative branch of the government for approval. As part of the executive branch, the Japanese Ministry of Finance has general jurisdiction over public finance including budget formulation.34 The national government’s budget consists of the general account and several special accounts. The general account is the basic account of the government, providing a snapshot of the overall framework of the government’s policies. Special accounts are established by legislation under specific conditions, such as the necessity to carry out specific projects.35

In order to faithfully and smoothly implement items proposed by the FPJSA, all efforts are made to secure necessary financial resources through proper burden sharing with the private sector. Space policy advocates try to secure a steady increase in the national budget, and to diversify financial resources by making use of other resources, including private ones.36 Through the budgetary process, allocations are made to fund specific objectives and missions through MEXT. However the team was unable to find the specific amounts that are allocated to individual space activities and missions. The general account budget of the national government for FY2002 amounted to ¥81,230 billion ($694 billion). The MEXT budget allocation amounted to ¥6,579.8 billion ($56.2 billion), accounting for 8.1% of the general account budget of the national government (13.8% of the total general purpose budget)37.

Funding of space activities in Japan is directed to three primary organisations. Funding for NASDA and ISAS is allocated by MEXT whereas NAL, an independent administration institution, is funded separately. The 2002 level of funding as declared by each organisation is listed in Table 2.1:

NASDA ¥145 Billion = $1.23 Billion MEXT ISAS ¥ 18 Billion = $0.15 Billion MEXT NAL ¥ 23 Billion = $0.19 Billion Independent institution38 Total ¥186 Billion = $1.59 Billion

Table 2.1: 2002 Level of Funding

Specific missions and projects are funded in order of priority based on total budget available. In early 1998, Japan entered into an agreement with NASA to contribute certain elements of the International Space Station. A partnership between 10 European countries (represented by ESA), the United States (NASA), Japan (NASDA), Canada (CSA) and Russia (RSA), The International Space Station (ISS) is the world's largest international cooperative programme in science and technology to date. 39 The agreement calls for each Party to bear the costs of fulfilling its responsibilities. However, as provided in Article 9, the partners will equitably share common system operations responsibilities.40 For the purpose of assigning operations responsibilities and costs, the Space Station is divided into the United States On-orbit Segment (USOS), which includes hardware provided by the US, Canada, Europe and Japan, as well as the Russian Orbital Segment. Each partner retains ownership of the equipment they bring.41 Unfortunately, Japan’s specific budgetary contributions to the ISS were not available.

The goal of the partnership is not to exchange funds. Therefore service agreements have been executed to realize a certain balance in services provided by the partners during the assembly and operations of the ISS. The partners’ shares of the USOS common costs are as follows: NASA, 76.6%; Canada, 2.3%; Europe, 8.3%; and Japan, 12.8%42. The major Japanese contribution to the ISS is the four-part Japanese Experiment Module, Kibo43. The first element of Kibo, the pressurized module, has been delivered to NASA for testing and an appropriate launch opportunity. Japan is responsible

2.21

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

for its percentage share (12.8%) of the USOS common ground operation and transportation of common supplies once Kibo is installed. The USOS common ground operating costs for fiscal year 2004 are estimated to be $305 million dollars. Japan may choose to reimburse NASA for transportation costs of common supplies or simply fund the activity itself. 44 NASDA has also entered into a barter agreement with NASA wherein 49% of the Kibo’s use was exchanged for launch of the module itself.45

2.3.5 Innovation Process

The Japanese Government has promoted the development of science and technology by enacting the Law Concerning Basic Science and Technology Plan in 1995, and the Basic Science and Technology Plan in 1996. To ensure strategic allocation of funds, a Prime Ministerial Notice was issued in 1997 on “National Guideline on the Methods of Evaluation for Government Research and Development.” Consequently, NASDA instituted a process of fair and impartial evaluation by groups of external, neutral reviewers in order to guide its future activities, to improve its management and operations, and to increase the public understanding and support for NASDA's activities. 46

In NASDA, the Office of Research and Development assumes primary responsibility for research on spacecraft systems as well as for individual and common technologies such as observation sensors and robot arms. Its research covers a wide range of inquiry such as space batteries, coolers in space, mass laser communications systems, life support systems, in-orbit replenishing technology and advanced reusable transport systems. It will take several years, or even several tens of years, to establish all these technologies. NASDA’S research activity expands its domain year by year, enabling it to enter into fields such as experiments with large-scale facilities, development of databases and simulation technologies with advanced information systems.

NASDA’s R&D evaluation process

NASDA established the Evaluation Committee consisting of 16 members (8 from Japan and 8 from abroad). This Committee defined an “Evaluation Plan of NASDA” and “Guidelines for the Implementation of Evaluation by Subcommittee,” requiring that programmes undergo detailed evaluation, according to field, by five subcommittees: Space Transportation, Satellite Engineering, Earth Observation, Space Utilisation and Research and Development.

NASDA established the Subcommittee for Research and Development to evaluate programmes and has reviewed the progress made in restructuring the Office of Research and Development every year since 1998. The Subcommittee makes recommendations and findings annually. This restructuring has established a technology foundation for space programmes for the 21st century.

In July 1998, following a series of accidents and satellites failures, the SAC established the Special Committee to Investigate Fundamental Problems in Japan's Space Activities and started to discuss the essential and structural problems of Japan's space activities. In May 1999, the committee recommended the more efficient utilisation of human resources, improvement of technology- development capability of NASDA (including, for example, reinforcement of the Office of R&D), accomplishment of the development project and improvement of reliability- and quality-management systems. Accordingly, the Office of R&D has started to reform itself based on the following principles: 1. More reliable project implementation; 2. Exploitation of advanced technologies/missions and reinforcement of technology basis; 3. Benefits for the public and international contribution.47

2.22 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Accomplishing these goals requires that four fundamental measures be taken. First, the importance of the project drafting function must be reinforced. Second, the system of performing of technical assistance projects and conduct of specialised research must be improved through the establishment of expert groups. Third, more extensive technology testing and verification procedures must be implemented. Fourth, The R&D system must be more open to researchers from external organisations, such as ISAS, NAL, The Communications Research Laboratory (CRL), universities and private companies.48 Consolidation into JAXA may alleviate the problems underlying this last requirement.

NASDA’s Office of Research and Development has started to reorganise its structure and programme implementation. In particular, NASDA has started the “i-Space application experiment project” as part of its research and development of space infrastructure necessary for a super-high speed internet society.49 The project is to carry out technical development and verification experiments to promote satellite application in various areas such as the Internet, education, medical science, disaster prevention, or ITS (Intelligent Transport System). It uses next generation communication satellites under development, including the Engineering Test Satellite (ETS-VIII), Wideband InterNetworking engineering test and Demonstration Satellite (WINDS), and Quasi-Zenith Satellite System.

ISAS Mission Selection Procedures

ISAS is an inter-university research institute, and is run in cooperation with scientists and engineers across the nation. ISAS solicits mission proposals, and committees comprising about equal numbers of internal and external members make mission selections. Approved projects are then implemented with the collaboration of scientists and engineers, again both inside and outside ISAS.

The first stage of the mission selection is endorsement by the Steering Committee of Space Science or the Steering Committee of Space Engineering. Each Committee consists of 30 members, half of which are from outside ISAS. The process usually starts with the formation of a Working Group. Comprised of scientists and engineers, the Working Group defines objectives, identifies scientific requirements and performs feasibility studies. When the planning is complete, the Working Group proposes the mission to the respective committee, depending on the nature of the mission. The committee evaluates the proposal on the basis of scientific significance, technical and financial feasibility, and technical maturity of the group behind the mission. When intensive study is needed, ISAS creates a subcommittee to conduct a detailed assessment. In the case that committees endorse new missions starting in the same fiscal year, the Director of Project Coordination may recommend priority.

Working Groups do not receive funds for their studies. However, the development of technologies essential for future missions is supported by a "basic development fund" after being refereed by groups appointed by the above committees.

The second stage of mission selection is a decision by the Advisory Council for Research and Development. The Council, whose 21 members again comprise roughly equal numbers of internal and external members, is the principal decision-making body of ISAS, and it also deals with budgets and appointments.

ISAS then proposes the selected mission to the government both for mission approval by the SAC and for budget allocation by the Ministry of Finance. A Diet resolution completes the selection process. A proposal for a given fiscal year (which starts on April 1) must be submitted to the government in June of the previous year.

Summary Observations

1. Government agencies dominate the process of innovation in space activities; 2. Space- and aeronautics-related private companies, universities and institutes also play

2.23

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

important roles in space R&D and they cooperate closely with the space agencies. For example, the GX Launch Vehicle was financed and established by space and aeronautics related private companies. NASDA is in charge of exploring the undeveloped technical area of liquefied natural gas engines and cryogenic propellant tanks using composites, and participates in the GX launch vehicle project for flight verification; 3. Fair and impartial assessments are implemented in the process of space mission decision- making and R&D activities in order to select projects of scientific and technological merit; 4. The process emphasises fundamental and long-term technologies. For instance, the technologies used for reusable launch vehicles have been under development for a long time.

2.3.6 Key Initiatives

Transportation Systems

The H-IIA expendable launch vehicle is Japan’s newest, most advanced rocket. The next step is the development of a reliable reusable launch vehicle, which may reduce currently high launch costs and suppress the increasing amount of space debris. Japan is working to: a) Enhance reliability and performance of turbo pumps, essentially for reusability of the engine;50 b) Develop advanced nozzles for reusable launchers (aerospike nozzles);51 c) Create rocket combustion visualisation methods (detailed observation of combustion mode inside of the liquid rocket combustor: Japan is now promoting visualisation of a combustor of the same size as that of the actual rocket engine); d) Develop an unmanned space shuttle system.

Earth Observation

Earth Observation satellites are important tools for a wide variety of practical applications in topography, weather and climate, and biological distribution of species. Advanced missions include the Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS), which will aid in disaster management and resource surveying using an L-band radar,52 and the Advanced Earth Observing Satellite-II (ADEOS-II, also known as Midori), which was launched in 2002 and among other things, currently functions to measure sea surface temperature and study global warming.53 Japan cooperates extensively with the United States on a variety of earth observation missions.

Communication, Broadcasting and Positioning

The Wideband InterNetworking engineering test and Demonstration Satellite (WINDS) project develops and verifies the main technologies for future ultra high-speed satellite communications such as a Ka-band high power repeater with an Active Phased Array Antenna and an on-board high-speed baseband switching router. The latest Engineering Test Satellite (ETS-VIII) will also carry experimental communications equipment.

Space Utilisation

Japan’s involvement in the space life sciences places heavy emphasis on scientific goals. The Japanese Experiment Module will house scientific experiments from the country’s leading researchers once it is firmly established as part of the ISS. Another Japanese ISS module, the Centrifuge, is a life science experiment facility expected to be launched in 2007. Japan is also developing a JEM Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS) as a robotic arm to support experiments conducted on the Exposed Facility.

2.24 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Space-based utilisation of the JEM, in conjunction with ground based initiatives, will allow Japan to develop technologies that can be applied to manned space activities in low-Earth orbit or middle- Earth orbit, or on the Moon in the 21st century. Identified key thematic areas include fundamental research in support of manned space activities, such as health care techniques, manned space transportation, radiation measurements and life support systems, as well as robotics and telescience techniques for ground-controlled space activities. Long-term effects of microgravity and potential anti-gravity countermeasures are also important goals. In the future, Japan intend to develop a Controlled Environmental Life Support System.54

Planetary Exploration

Japan has an ambitious planetary exploration programme through ISAS, including robotic missions and explorations of the Moon, Mars and an asteroid. The Luna-A and SELENE missions will develop key technologies needed for future Moon exploration missions. The propulsion module on the SELENE orbiter will demonstrate technologies for the soft-landing, obstacles avoidance, thermal- control and energy-storage, required to survive through days and nights under the hard lunar environmental condition. MUSES-C will target an asteroid with orbital manoeuvres carried out by electric propulsion, and will demonstrate advanced technologies for spectrometry, sample extraction (bullet gun) and return.55 Planet-B (also known as Nozomi) is en route to study the Martian upper atmosphere in 2004. Future plans include planetary missions to Mercury (Bepi Colombo) and Venus (PLANET-C).

Space Science

Japan has a strong space science initiative in addition to planetary exploration programmes. To date, ISAS has launched 25 scientific satellites using its own launchers and tracking stations. Its principle interests are space astronomy and solar system exploration. The space astronomy missions have included, inter alia, infrared astronomy (IRTS), X-ray astronomy (ASCA), solar physics (Yohkoh) and space-based very-long baseline interferometry (VLBI) with HALCA. Japan's Mars orbiter mission, Nozomi, was launched in 1998 and is due to arrive in Mars orbit in 2004. Future space astronomy missions include VSOP-2 in the radio region, ASTRO-F and Space Infrared Telescope for Cosmology and Astrophysics (SPICA) in infrared, the New X-ray Telescope (NeXT) and SOLAR-B for solar physics. ISAS's current and planned space science programmes will be incorporated into the programmes of JAXA in October 2003.

Fundamental Technology for Satellite Systems

NASDA's Engineering Test Satellite (ETS) series is aimed at developing satellite common base technologies.56 NASDA has developed seven Engineering Test Satellites so far. The latest (ETS-VIII) is an advanced satellite being developed primarily to establish and verify the world's largest geostationary satellite bus technology for the space missions of the beginning of the 21st century. The ETS-VIII will carry a high precise clock system for satellite positioning experiments.57 The MUSES- C asteroid sample return vehicle from ISAS will also employ new electric propulsion systems and navigational technology that will be used on future satellites.58

2.3.7 Relationships Between the Agencies and Other Groups or Institutions within Japan

In the development and utilisation of space technologies, NASDA, ISAS and NAL maintain close ties with many external groups in two distinct ways.59 60 First, they connect with the external groups or institutions through contractual commitments that the agencies make with industry to create needed technologies. In large new projects, the agencies will submit Requests for Proposal to industry. Companies will then return proposals as bids for agency contracts. The agencies will select a contractor to provide the needed technologies from the pool of bidders based on price and other

2.25

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

factors. If connected to an existing project, the technology may be developed directly by the contractor, without any further bidding process, at the agency’s request. The contractor may perform the work itself or use subcontractors. For example, NASDA has provided the members of the “Subcommittee for Satellite Engineering”61 with two principle documents: the first addresses the general activities and future plans of the Office of Satellite Systems. The second document presents the detailed programme plan and mission descriptions.

The second form of relationship occurs when NASDA, ISAS or NAL offer services to external groups, especially to industry. They contribute to industry through the transfer of patents of developed technologies and through use of facilities. The agencies support the development activities by mid- to small-size venture companies, and thus help the expansion of space development projects. Moreover, they expand opportunities for entry into space development by soliciting ideas for applications of the Kibo experimental laboratory from the outside groups. For instance, NASDA provides Tsukuba Space Center facilities for environmental testing of many objects by the space industrial organisations.

Recently, NASDA, ISAS and NAL have recognized that there are still many ways to improve their relationships with external groups.62 They recognize the importance of public understanding and support. For example, in 1997, NASDA started to implement the “PC2 Program”, which stands for Public Communication by Public Corporations. This is the first systematic public relations programme at NASDA, and it has been favourably received. All three agencies have made further efforts toward improving relationship with users and industry by opening some services to public users, including: • Earth Observation, in collaboration with the Earth Observation Research Center, connects the agencies with scientists and user communities. The participation of the agencies in the Research and Development Programme for Global Change Prediction is also a clear sign of their willingness to enhance scientific and technical synergy; • Use of the Space Station, for example, with the development of a Center of Competence within NASDA and the promotion of industrial utilisation of the facility.

The three agencies have dedicated themselves to building a new relationship with industry and are working on defining the relevant implementation procedures. This new relationship would include: • Allocation of prime contractor and system integrator roles to industry on projects, such as ADEOS II and the Data Relay Test Satellite (DRTS); • Increased industrial competition, especially in selecting prime contractors; • Partnership for the development of new technologies.

Public support is critical to the agencies’ mission because the public is the ultimate end user in any aspect of space development and taxes provide the agencies’ funds. Accordingly, the agencies enhanced public relations and established a system for public information disclosure. NASDA also provides technical assistance to governmental organisations to assist policy implementation and increase technology transfer and research opportunities for and for research institutes in order to develop their studies. National economic welfare motivates increased interaction between NASDA and industry in the development of space technologies for practical application as well as technology transfers to and from non-space applications.63

2.3.8 International Cooperation

Japan has had a long history of international cooperation in space technology, particularly with the United States, due to the unique relationship between these two counties after World War II. Political and economic advantages of cooperation have existed for both nations for over thirty years. As part of larger diplomatic efforts in East Asia, the US proposed assistance in space technologies to Japan in 1968. Japan accepted, deciding it was faster to import the technology from a leading space-faring nation rather than to develop space technology autonomously.64 The early Japanese N-1 and N-2 launchers, for example, were essentially American Delta rockets built under license from American

2.26 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE companies.65 Opting for the fast track to innovation by importing baseline intellectual capital is consistent with Japan’s post-war industrial policy of technological “catch up” in other areas as well, notably automobiles and electronics. The cultural context of a defeated, post-war Japan provides further insight into the motivation to cooperate internationally. Takemi Chiku has written, “through science and technology cooperation in space, Japan has been trying to avoid conflicts with other nations and to gain recognition and reputation in international society. Among all the nations, such recognition by the world leader, the United States, has always been the most important.”66

Japan is currently involved in several areas of international S&T cooperation through MEXT, including involvement in the International Human Frontier Science Programme Organisation (IHFSPO), the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) program, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), as well as the ISS.67 Japan is a member of the 26-nation Asia Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum68 and participates in the Japan-US Science Technology and Space Applications Programme69 as well as the Japan/French Space Cooperation Symposium.70 To facilitate external relations, NASDA has offices in seven overseas locations: Paris, Bonn, Bangkok, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Houston, and the Kennedy Space Center.71

The FPJSA specifically mentions international cooperation as essential part of Japan’s activities in space development. The SAC expects Japanese space programmes to: • Develop indigenous technology; • Contribute to technological improvements worldwide; • Utilise the results of space activities for the promotion of space development internationally; • Take the initiative in promoting international cooperation.72

Such activities should be based on mutual benefit, take into account the relative capabilities of cooperating partners, and should be based on clearly defined purposes and objectives. This may result in the sharing of information, personnel, technology transfer and collaborative projects. The SAC singles out the potential for remote sensing system integration, joint operation and sharing of experimental apparati. The objective to cooperate extends beyond individual nations to include international organisations such as the United Nations, Intelsat and Inmarsat.73

Examples of Japanese international cooperation include participation in the ISS with the soon-to-be launched JEM, which will involve activities in human spaceflight, space robotics and microgravity and space environment research.74 All of the recently launched Japanese satellites have involved cooperation with other national space agencies. NASDA will conduct experiments in robotics with the ESA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) on the ETS-VIII. The Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) is a joint remote sensing project with the NASA in which NASDA provided the precipitation radar and the H-II rocket. Both NASA and ESA, as well as the University of Chile, are involved in NASDA’s Communication and Broadcasting Engineering Test Satellite (COMETS).75 Japan also cooperates extensively with other nations in the field of space science through ISAS. Recent missions have included the ASTRO-E Cosmic X-ray detector, the MUSES-C asteroid return, and the LUNAR-A Moon penetrator.76 A more complete record of Japan’s international cooperation in space science is shown in Table 2.2 below.

2.27

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Year Spacecraft Objectives Mode* Partner(s) 1987 GINGA (ASTRO-C) Cosmic X-ray variability 1,4 USA, UK 1989 AKEBONO (EXOS-D) Auroral phenomena 1,3,4 Canada 1990 HITEN (MUSES-A) Space engineering 1 Germany 1991 YOHKOH (SOLAR-A) Solar Flares 1,3,4 USA 1,4 UK 1992 GEOTAIL Magnetospheric tail 1,2,3,4 USA 1,4 Germany 1993 ASCA (ASTRO-D) Cosmic X-ray 1,3,4 USA 1995 SFU Cosmic infrared radiation 2 USA 1996 HALCA (MUSES-B) Space VLBI 3,4 USA, ESA, RF 1998 NOZOMI (PLANET-B) Martian plasma/atmosphere 1,3,4 USA 1,4 Canada, Sweden, Germany 1999 ASTRO-E Cosmic X-ray 1,4 USA 2001 MUSES-C Asteroid sample return 1,3,4 USA 2002 LUNAR-A Moon penetrators 4 USA, France 2004 SOLAR-B Solar activities 1,3,4 USA 1,4 UK

*Modes of Cooperation 1: International partner provides instruments or parts on ISAS spacecraft. 2: International partner launches or recovers ISAS spacecraft. 3: International partner receives telemetry from ISAS spacecraft. 4: International participation in analysis of ISAS spacecraft data. 5: ISAS cooperates in tracking spacecraft of international partners.

Table 2.2: Recent and Future International Cooperation through ISAS77

References

1 MEXT - Space Activities Commission, Fundamental Policy of Japan’s Space Activities, Preface, 24 January 1996, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/lib/space-law/chapter_4/4-1-1-4/index_e.html. Accessed on 13 August 2003. 2 Ibid, Preface 3 Ibid, Section 1-1 4 Ibid, Section 2-2 5 Ibid, Preface 6 MEXT, “Promotion of Research and Development,” available at: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/science/07d.htm. Accessed on 31 August 2003. 7 DJ Interbank Foreign Exchange Rates at 20:50 GMT, 29 August 2003. 8 Tetsuichi Ito, NASDA, “Space Technologies of Japan,” presentation given to the International Space University, 6 August 2003. 9 Ibid 10 Op cit, Fundamental Policy of Japan’s Space Activities, Section 1-2

2.28 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

11 MEXT, “About the Space Activities Commission,” available at: http://www.excite.co.jp/world/url/body?wb_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mext.go.jp%2Fa_menu%2Fkaihatu%2 Fshingi%2Findex.htm&wb_lp=JAEN&wb_dis=2. Accessed on 09 August 2003. 12 NASDA, “About NASDA,” available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/about/history_e.html. Accessed on 09 August 2003. 13 Ito, Op cit 14 ISAS, “About ISAS,” available at: http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/about/what/index.html. Accessed on 13 August 2003. 15 Ibid 16 National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan, “About NAL,” available at: http://www.nal.go.jp/eng/info/index.html. Accessed 15 August 2003. 17 Ibid 18 Ito, Op cit 19 Ibid 20 Ibid 21 The Constitution of Japan, available at: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japan/English/english- Constitution.html. Accessed on 16 August 2003. 22 Foreign Press Center of Japan, “Japan Launches First Information-Gathering Satellites,” 10 April 2003, available at: http://www.fpcj.jp/e/shiryo/jb/0318.html. Accessed on 16 August 2003. 23 K. Tatsuzawa, “space Commercialisation Law and Policy in Japan,” ECSL News No. 16 May 1996, available at: http://esapub.esrin.esa.it/ecsl/ecsl16/tats16.htm. Accessed on 16 August 2003. 24 United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs, “Law Concerning the National Space Development Agency of Japan (Law No. 50 of June 23, 1969, as amended),” available at: http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/national/japan/nasda_1969E_pf.html. Accessed on 15 August 2003. 25 Law Concerning Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Law Number 161 of 13 December 2002. 26 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Japan’s Policies on the Control of Arms Exports,” available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/policy/. Accessed on 16 August 2003. 27 Bates Gill, Kensuke Ebata and Matthew Stephenson, “Japan’s Export Control Initiatives: Meeting New Nonproliferation Challenges,” The Nonproliferation Review, Fall 1996, p.32. 28 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Arms and Arms Production-related Equipment Listed as Item 1 of the Annexed List 1 of the Export Trade Control Order,” available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/policy/annex1.html. Accessed on 16 August 2003. 29 Richard T. Cupitt, “Nonproliferation Export Controls in Japan,” available at http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_japan.htm. Accessed 9 August 2003. 30 “Japan’s Policies on the Control of Arms Exports,” Op cit 31 Gill et al., Op cit p.33. 32 Takemi Chiku, “Japanese Space Policy in the Changing World,” submitted to the Department of Political Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Science in Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990, pp. 211-213. 33 Agreement between the United States and Japan Concerning Cross-Waiver of Liability for Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Space Peaceful Purpose, with Annex and Exchange of Notes, July 20, 1995, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/lib/space-law/chapter_4/4-2-2-12_e.html. Accessed 20 August 2003. 34 Understanding the Japanese Budget, p.5 from http://www.mof.go.jp/english/budget/budget.htm 35 Ibid 36 Fundamental Policy of Japan’s Space Activities,1996 http://www.mext.go.jp/english/kaihatu/aerosp01.htm, 22 August 2003. 37MEXT’s budget from: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/budget/02.htm, August 22, 2003. 38 Ito, Op cit 39 ESA, “Human Spaceflight: Building the International Space Station,” available at: http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESARW78708D_index_0.html, Accessed on 26 August 2003. 40 Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and JAPAN, Article 16, fttp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1998/nasa_japan.html 41 GAO report: Space Station Cost to Operate 1999, p.14, www.gao.gov, archive, 28 August 2003. 42 GAO report: Space Station Cost to Operate 1999, p.15, www.gao.gov, archive, 28 August, 2003. 43 Space.com, “Hope Flies: Japan’s Contribution to the ISS,” available at: http://www.spacekids.com/spacenews/iss_japan_000419.html. Accessed on 26 August 2003. 44 GAO report: Space Station Cost to Operate 1999, www.gao.gov, archive, August 28, 2003 p.16 45 Jeffrey A. Hoffman, NASA/MIT, “Major Issues Facing Government Space Programmes,” lecture given at the International Space University on 14 July 2003.

2.29

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

46 NASDA, “Evaluation Report of Subcommittee for Research and Development,” Press Release issued November 1998, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/press/1998/11/hyouka_981125_f_02_e.html. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 47 NASDA, “Evaluation and Recommendations for Research and Development,” available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/press/1999/08/hyouka_990831_a02_e.html. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 48 Ibid 49 NASDA, “Evaluation Report of The Second Meeting of the Subcommittee for Research and Development,” Press Release issued August 1998, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/press/1999/08/hyouka_990831_a02_e.html. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 50 NAL Kakuta Space Propulsion Laboratory, “Kakuta Space Propulsion Laboratory – Turbo Pump Group-“, http://www.nal.go.jp/krc/eng/rocket/turbo.htm, Accessed on 20 August 2003. 51 NAL Kakuta Space Propulsion Laboratory, “Kakuda Space Propulsion Laboratory - Advanced Nozzle Group”, http://www.nal.go.jp/krc/eng/rocket/nozzle.htm, Accessed on 20 August 2003. 52 NASDA, “Advanced Land Observing Satellite Home Page”, http://www.nasda.go.jp/projects/sat/alos/index_e.html. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 53 NASDA, “Scientific Goal ADEOS-II Science Project EORC NASDA” http://sharaku.eorc.nasda.go.jp/ADEOS2/goal/goal.html, Accessed on 20 August 2003. 54 Special Committee on Long-Term Vision – Space Activities Commission: Toward Creation of Space Age in the New Century: Report on Japan’s Space Long-Term Mission. July, 1994. Provisional translation, rev.1. September 15, 1994. 55 ISAS: MUSES-C, http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/muses-c/index.html, Accessed on 18 August 2003. 56 NASDA, “Engineering Test Satellite VIII (ETS-VIII),” avilable at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/projects/sat/ets8/index_e.html, Accessed on 16, August 2003. 57 Ibid 58 Ibid 59 NASDA, “Space Development Structure in Japan,” available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/about/organisations_j.html. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 60 NASDA, “NASDA’s Organisation,” available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/about/soshiki_j.html. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 61 NASDA, “Submission to the "Subcommittee for Satellite Engineering,” Press Release issued November 1998, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/press/1998/11/hyouka_981125_c_12a_e.html. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 62 Evaluation Report of the National Space Development Agency Of Japan, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/about/evaluate/data/3-1-2.pdf. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 63 “General Considerations and Recommendations,” NASDA press release in November 1998, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/press/1998/11/hyouka_981113_02_e.html. Accessed on 20 August 2003. 64 Takemi Chiku, Op cit, pp. 29-31. 65 Euroconsult, Space Business in Japan: Situation and Prospects for National Policy, Applications and Industry, Euroconsult, Paris, 1990, p. 4. 66 Ibid, pp. 53-54. 67MEXT, “Cooperation in Science and Technology,” available at: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/exchange/10f.htm. Accessed on 12 August 2003. 68 Asia Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum website, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/projects/support/aprsaf/. Accessed on 16 August 2003. 69 Japan-US Science Technology and Space Applications Programme website, available at: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/justsap/justsap.html. Accessed on 16 August 2003. 70 NASDA, “Japanese, French Agencies Forge Closer Ties at ‘Tanabata’ Star Festival,” 12 July 2003, available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/topics/2003/topics2003-07_e.html. Accessed on 17 August 2003. 71 NASDA, “International Cooperation,” available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/projects/support/int/index_e.html. Accessed on 17 August 2003. 72 Fundamental Policy of Japan’s Space Activities, Op cit, Section 5-1 73 Ibid, Section 5-1. 74 NASDA, “International Space Station,” available at: http://www.nasda.go.jp/projects/iss/index_e.html. Accessed on 17 August 2003. 75 NASDA, “International Cooperation,” Op cit 76 ISAS, “International Cooperation,” available at: http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/ic/index.html. Accessed on 17 August 2003. 77 Ibid

2.30 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

2.4 Russian Federation

2.4.1 Agency Organisational Structure

Created on February 25, 19921, after the break-up of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Soviet space programme, the Russian Aviation and Space Agency (RASA) serves as the national civil space agency. RASA was initially formed to serve as a state customer for systems and hardware uniquely associated with the civil space programme. However, from 1994 to 1999, the Russian Government revised and amended the Russian legislation and adopted several decrees, regulations and resolutions, directing the transfer of approximately 436 state and joint-stock companies and enterprises of the rocket, space and aviation industry to the control of RASA. On March 11, 1999 the Russian Space Agency was renamed “Russian Aviation and Space Agency”, currently known as Rosaviakosmos.2 Using the technology and the launch sites that belonged to the former Soviet space programme, Rosaviakosmos now coordinates and controls the execution of the Federal Space Programme, including all manned and unmanned non-military space flights.

The General Director is the head of RASA and is appointed and relieved directly by the President of Russian Federation. The General Director is surrounded by the First Deputy on Space Activities and three Deputies heading the three Directorates of the Rosaviakosmos space activities: Economy, Technical and Functional. Each agency Directorate has a number of departments. The Economy Directorate oversees the development and implementation of the Russian Federal Space Programme. The Technical Directorate deals with human spaceflights, landing vehicles and the ground segment and scientific facilities. Finally, the Functional Directorate includes departments on international cooperation, public relations, administration, procurement, security, services, and science and technology3. The structure of the space sector of RASA is given in Figure 2.10.

Figure 2.10: Structure of the Space Sector of RASA4

2.31

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

2.4.2 Agency Strategy and Vision

Today, space remains a key element in Russian geopolitics and is a dominant factor that defines the status of the Russian Federation as a great power and a high-technology country. Outer space exploration and utilisation play a significant role in increasing national security and in supporting economic, scientific and social development of the country. Space activities are designated as top priority by the state, which provides both political and economical support.5

Russia has all the appropriate assets for independent space activities. The space activities are conducted in accordance with the Russian Federal law "On space activities" (1993; revised and amended, 1996)6. In 1998 the Russian Government adopted an inter-industry resolution (RK-98 KT, 1998) to oversee the creation, production and operation (application) of space complexes, to regulate the procedure of decision-making at the stages of creation and modernisation of small and big scale space production (including foreign partners), and to direct the creation of new space systems with scientific, socioeconomic, and commercial purposes.7

Regarding legislation on the peaceful use of outer space, all requirements and procedures are reflected in the Russian Federal Space Programme.

The main directions of space activities in Russia are the following:8, 9 1. Providing independent access to space to Russia; 2. Solving social and economic problems; 3. Analysing of the natural resources of Earth and conducting fundamental scientific research; 4. Scientific, technical and technological development to further national economy; and 5. Assuring national security as a Russian Federation Priority10 by means of space technology including: a. Environmental monitoring, study of natural resources, data gathering for meteorological forecasting, control of emergency situations and environmental disasters, including estimation/evaluation and efforts on mitigation of their consequences; b. Developing manned space flights; c. Working on new and high-purity materials production; d. Providing space global communications and multi-channel television broadcasting across the territory of the Russian Federation; e. Realising international agreements in the field of space, including International Space Station construction and planetary explorations; f. Global and high-precision coordinate and time data support; g. Conducting fundamental scientific research in astrophysics, the study of planets and small bodies of the Solar system, solar physics, and solar- terrestrial connections; h. Remote sensing of natural resources; i. Creating the scientific, technical and technological reserves to develop promising technologies.

International cooperation and commercial programmes and projects implementation are gaining in importance. So far, interstate and intergovernmental agreements with 18 countries have been signed, including the US, Japan, India, Bulgaria, Brazil, Argentina, Korea, Australia, the European Space Agency (ESA) and individual European countries.11

2.32 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

2.4.3 Policy and Law

Space activities in Russia are given both political and economic priority with the intent to apply the development of space science and industry to solving socio-economic, technical, scientific, and defence issues of the Russian Federation (RF). The RF law “On Space Activity” defines all kinds of operations concerning exploration and use of outer space, the Moon and other celestial bodies. Space research, space communications such as television and radio broadcasting, Earth observation, environmental monitoring and meteorology, use of navigation and positioning satellite systems and piloted space missions; the development, use and transfer of space techniques, technology, products and services indispensable to space activities should also be considered as an integral part of the generic term “space activity”.12

The Federal Assembly13 adopts the legislative acts that regulate space activities and ratifies the international treaties concerning space activity. The President of the Russian Federation ensures the implementation of Russian space policy by issuing decrees and executive orders, supervising RASA and considering and adopting the draft Federal Space Programme.14 Finally, RASA directly supervises the space industry, elaborates a draft Federal Space Programme (in collaboration with the Ministry of Defence, the Russian Academy of Sciences and other state customers) and organises calls for tender “for works in creation and use of space technology including works under international space projects”.15 It must be noted that collaboration with the Ministry of Defence is related only to the utilisation of space assets of dual function.

RASA is an RF ministry, but with a very specific subject of regulation: it executes space legislation and implements the international contracts and agreements of the RF regarding space activity. At the same time, RASA has its own instruments for regulation of space activity inside Russia. It provides direct control of all companies and corporations of the RF space industry and additionally can participate independently in space projects and programmes, being the official legal entity under the Russian Legal System. Figure 2.11 presents the positioning of RASA in the Russian Government.

Figure 2.11: Organisation of Russian Space Activities16

2.33

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

The core of Russian space policy is preserving Russia’s space potential as well as applying it for guaranteeing prosperity for the citizens and resolving their pressing problems. Within this framework, Russian space activity should be implemented with a view to maintaining the Federation’s defence capability and strengthening its security by concentrating primarily “on the use of space-based systems for military command and control, communications, intelligence, and other types of backup for the Armed Forces”.17 Moreover, the Russian Federal Space Programme should be coordinated with the requirements and the economic resources of the Federation.

Russia gives great importance to the commercial aspect of space applications in order to strengthen Russia’s position in the world space market. Several structural transformations and economic reforms have been implemented aimed at favouring privatisation and development of profitable production facilities, handling the precarious economic features of space activity,18 and attracting foreign investment.19 The policy determined by the Federal assembly, emphasizes "the equal right of Russian Federation enterprises, organisations and citizens to participate in space activity and enjoy its results".20 Furthermore, significant priority is given to scientific space research. The Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation supports cooperation in space exploration with the CIS member- states and promotes the preservation and development of established scientific ties. Last, but not least, it should be mentioned that “state policy is designed to support domestic enterprises and organisations, to deepen international cooperation and integration in space exploration on a mutually advantageous basis, and ensure the fulfilment of Russia’s obligations under international agreements”.21

The legal framework implemented to support the above stated space policy comprises, among others, the Law of Russian Federation "On Space Activity" (adopted by the State Duma, 1993; revised and amended, 1996), the Law of the Russian Federation "On state support for missile-space industry and space infrastructure of the Russian Federation" (adopted, 1999); the Federal Law "On legal regulation of interaction between subjects of space activity and foreign or international organisations" (adopted, 2000); the statute on Licensing of Legal Activities (adopted, 2002); and the statute of Russian Aviation and Space Agency (adopted,1999).22

The Russian Federal Law mandates registration of both legal entities carrying out space operations as well as space objects. The latter must also have markings certifying their relation to the Russian Federation. Within this legal framework, the Russian State retains jurisdiction and control over all its registered space objects, during the ground time, at any stage of space flight or stay in outer space, on the Moon or celestial bodies, as well as on return to the Earth. The same apply to foreign entities with Russian registration.23 At this time, there are neither specific criteria for registration in the Federal Law nor a national civil body responsible for registration procedures; only recording for technical and logistic purposes takes place under the supervision of the Russian Strategic Forces.

As far as licensing is concerned, the Law of the Russian Federation establishes procedures for licensing “space activities for scientific and national economic purposes”24 performed by the Russian Space Agency. Licensing concerns all sorts of space operations conducted by legal entities or individual entrepreneurs of the Russian Federation, as well as those carried out by foreign citizens and organisations under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. Space activities subject to licensing include tests, manufacture, storage, preparations for launching, launching and utilising space vehicles and control over flights.25

With regard to the legal framework governing Russian telecommunications, there is still a long way to go. The Russian Telecommunication Administration is facing a major strategic challenge as it works to establish a legislative and regulatory framework that will ensure the smooth development of the sector. Recent telecommunication advances in Russia have been slowed due to economic and political problems. The Russian Federation has focused efforts in areas such as the licensing process, harmonisation of legislation with the rest of the world, creating a competitive environment, establishing price controls and delivering a regulatory scheme relevant to national security requirements.26

2.34 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Several decrees and statutes govern the liability field and insurance issues. The law of RF "On Space Activities", under Section VII, Article 29, clarifies the status of liability for damage caused by space related activities. Organisations, private entities and citizens that are responsible for the operation of the space related technology are also responsible for the compensation of damage caused by space related activities.27 In the same document, under Section V, Article 25, the status of insurance in space activity is also clarified. All participants in space-related activities are obliged to acquire insurance for their operations and activities up to a certain amount specified by the Russian Federation on a case- by-case basis. The compulsory insurance premiums are either transferred to the Russian Space Fund or to some private entity with the required licence.28 The Russian Space Fund has been established to support and promote space science and industry (Article 13 of the above-mentioned Decree).

With reference to space-based technology transfer and export control issues, it should be underlined that over the last decade, the Russian Federation has made great strides towards the development of a legislative basis for its export control system. In 1995, responding to international pressure, Russia joined the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Wassenaar Arrangements (on export control for conventional arms and dual use of goods and technologies). Later on, in July 1999, the Russian State Duma passed the “Law on Export Control”. This constitutes a well-developed framework of export regulation institutions and regulations29. Russian Federal Law No. 50 focuses on export control. In particular, Article 189 was amended on 23 April of 2002 in order to include certain technology transfer and export activities as criminal offences. Presidential Decree No. 1005 (2001), approved a list of missile-related equipment, materials and technologies that are subject to export control. Since 2001, there is a series of Governmental Decrees and Presidential Edicts that have been implemented in order to create the legal framework for technology export control30.

The Ministry of Foreign Economic Affairs has created the Export Control Commission, which is charged with coordinating export policy, implementing legislation and resolving licence issues. Representatives of the 13 central governmental agencies are part of this commission. However, the administration of export controls falls under the purview of the Federal Service for Currency and Export control. The office charged with export controls is embedded in an agency whose mission is to promote exports rather than control them. Finally, The Russian Aerospace Agency also has an export control division that reviews contracts from enterprises under its jurisdiction. Even though the laws and regulations exist, the implementation remains a considerable problem31, primarily due to the lack of personnel, who are poorly reimbursed (a fact that increases the chances of bribery and corruption). On the other hand, the Russian space industry is forced to export technology and know-how because public funding is insufficient to sustain the existing industrial infrastructure. Russia’s inability to enforce export regulations creates significant instability in the control and the dissemination of space related technology.32

Last but not least, a reference should be made to the legal framework governing international cooperation. The Russian Federation has made significant progress in promoting the development of international cooperation in the field of space operations and common approaches to problems arising from space activity. In Article 26 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Space Activity", Russia is bound to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations stemming from the International Treaties as well as the legal protection of the technologies and commercial secrets of foreign organisations and citizens carrying out space operations under its jurisdiction.33, 34

2.35

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

2.4.4 Agency Funding and Budget

RASA Funding

A number of unfavourable financial, organisational and political issues were created for the Russian space programme with the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union. Russia inherited the task of continuing the great legacy of successes that were generated by the Soviet space programme. The country’s lingering financial difficulties, however, have limited the amount of money it can dedicate to civilian space activities. Nonetheless, Russia has managed to maintain a well-respected and high profile space programme. This is possible because of the extensive ground space support infrastructure, and the use of earlier accumulated substantial reserves. This is important in order to resolve the problems of a huge and highly qualified work force that, after the Soviet Period has lost its position, and changed professions because of the low salaries in the space sector compared with other sectors in the Russian economy. Because of this huge salary disparity, the space sector has suffered a work force decrease since 1992 of 70-80% compared to the Soviet Period.35

The same salary differentiation is responsible for the lack of spin-offs from the space sector. The market for space services is small. Furthermore, it is not based on payment of money: customers use the services for free or pay for them from the state budget. Additionally, demand from the primary customer of the space sector, the military, is decreasing. The enhancement of the space programme is a societal need, however its importance and prioritisation is not followed by an adequate budget.36

In general, it is difficult to evaluate the Russian budget because of problems of adjustment for the exchange rate, depressed economic conditions, wages in Russia, and the absence of new government or capital investment. Therefore the level of foreign investment as well as military spending should be added to these figures. For instance, Energiya is estimated to receive half (or even more of) its earnings from abroad and some estimates indicate even more.37

Each year RASA develops a calendar year budget with outlays earmarked broadly for the "Federal Space Programme".38 The basis of each new budget is derived from the previous year’s allocations. The Ministries of Finance and Economics are responsible for reviewing the agency’s budget and to provide necessary feedback. The agency’s request is considered by the Ministry of Economics based on types of expenditures, their impact on economic status on enterprises and on general "request and return".39 On the other hand, the Ministry of Finance makes its review from a more vital perspective. It considers the agency’s request from a standpoint of how the funding allocation influences the general structure of the federal budget. More important, the Ministry of Finance determines the specific release date and amount of financing.40 Individual space missions and projects are not specifically outlined in the agency allocation. The agency’s budget is subsequently passed to the Duma (Russian Parliament) for adoption.41 The Glonass system, because of its importance, is financed separately from the federal budget. RASA additionally receives part of the money, specifically allocated for maintenance of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. With the transition of some industrial enterprises under its management, RASA also handles finances allocated for social support and conversion programmes at these enterprises. This report has to emphasize that the space corporations are under RASA. They are able to work on their own and to sell their products, but they are not the owner of the profits: 90% of these goes to the state, because of the peculiar legal form of these corporations.

Financing of the RASA staff is provided from federal budget funds, allocated for the maintenance of federal bodies of executive power.42 Allocations of funds from Russia’s federal budget for the space programme have decreased significantly from the early 1990’s to date. Since 1992, the federal space programme obtains its dedicated financing from federal budget allocations (this applies only to the civil space activities, because the military space programme is funded through the general military outlays)43. Because of the general instability of the Russian economy, federal officials retain the right to withhold allocated funding if budget revenues fall significantly short of expectations. Consequently, the amounts distributed may differ from what was originally allocated. Budgetary

2.36 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE decision-making procedures must be amended so that their effects no longer mask or distort the political decisions they are supposed to express. Analysing the funded Russian space programmes is not a guarantee that each single programme will take place. Only a part of the agreed programme is budgeted: in 1995, only 77%, falling to 54% in 1997 and 49% in 1998. Things improved in 1999 when the budget covered 63% of the agreed-upon programmes.44

It is the States’ responsibility to develop the technologies of the future through R&T45. The Russian Federal Budget for 2003 was approved by the president of the Russian federation on December 30th, 2002. In it US $263.6 million are planned for space research and utilisation. In total the space programme received 0.5% of the whole Federal Budget. The Glonass system is to receive US $48 million for the fiscal year of 2003.46 In a recent development, the Russian Space Agency has received an additional US $100 million of extra funding for 2004 that will be mostly used to finance Russian obligations on the International Space Station, as well as the development of the Russian segments of the ISS.47 However, there is probably little money in the budget for the actual utilisation of the International Space Station, including funding for Russian experiments.48 Unfortunately there is no publicly available information on the breakdown of this amount to individual programmes. The evidence of existing contributions to the ISS and participation in the commercial space markets, however, has been clearly documented. Russia continues to be a major player in the world’s space activities, despite existing economic challenges.

The Economics of Russian Participation in the International Space Station

This report emphasizes that the American interest for Russian participation in the ISS was driven by different considerations, many related to using Russian space capabilities and experience with manned space stations, in order to enhance the US space programme efforts and potentially reduce the costs of achieving various space objectives relative to the space station programme49. With this rationale in mind, it could be possible that once the US obtains the Russian contributions that are the most up-to- date, the US might not be as interested in cooperation with Russia. Should this be the case, Russia should not rely only in US contracts. The choice of the US to collaborate and finance the Russian space sector is also a way to discourage technology-transfer (and especially professional’s relocation) to “rogue” countries50, like Iran or North Korea.

Building upon the agreement to create the ISS cooperatively with a number of international partners, Russia’s goal is to utilize its capabilities as world's leading country in space station hardware and cosmonaut long-duration missions. The Khrunichev State Space Science and Production Centre built the first ISS module, Zarya, in cooperation with other Russian rocket and space industry enterprises under a contract with US Boeing Company51. Each partner in the ISS project is responsible for the funding of a number of components to the space station and a share of the operating costs. The US space agency, NASA, has provided payments to RASA in return for research and other services.52 The recent suspension of the U.S. space shuttle activities has made Russia the sole source of operational missions to the ISS. Russian officials have said that they would approve the early release of $38 million that had been budgeted for the latter half of the year to finance construction of two more Progress supply vehicles for this year and the next. They also tentatively pledged to increase their space agency's operating budget in 2004, but without indicating where they would find the additional funds.53 The Russian 2004 budget allocates a bigger amount in funds for space activities and obligations related to ISS operations than the past.54

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total 600 650 750 600 Agreed budget for RASA 139 113 217 250 220 263 410 - 430 (million €) Delivered funds 56 71 145 167 134 (million €) Table 2.3: Deduced Amounts of Funding for the Civilian Space Programme

2.37

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

In the previous years there were inconsistencies between the funds that had been agreed in the parliamentary budget discussions and the actual funds delivered to the space sector. Table 2.3 shows these differences. For the years 2000-2002 we acquired only the combined military and civilian budget55 so we had to deduce the amount of the actual civilian funds by analogy to the year 1999 when both civilian and total spending were known. The variation of the deduced amounts per year is shown in Figure 2.12

500 400 300 200 100 Budgeted Funds 0 1998 Actual Funds 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 2.12: Evolution of the Russian Civilian Space Budget

Commercial space services

With a limited federal space budget and stuck in tough economic times, the Russian Space Agency has sought to supplement funding sources by means of commercial activities, in order to maintain its workforce and production lines. These activities of the Russian Space Agency have attracted a lot of international attention. The most competitive Russian space products are launch-vehicles and manned spaceflight experience.56 Russian commercial space activities are displayed in Table 2.4.

Filling the third seat on Soyuz with a visitor has become a commercial imperative. The Russians reached an agreement with Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth for a flight to the ISS, and other flights are planned for the future. In recent years, sales of vacant Soyuz seats and privately financed ventures have provided almost 50% of the funding for Russian’s manned space programme.57 The Russians have agreements with the French space agency, CNES, to send French astronauts to the ISS, to carry out scientific research, for a fee of $17 million. In May 2001, a broader agreement was signed with the European Space Agency to send European astronauts to the Station before 2006.58

As part of the effort to enhance commercial activities, the Russian Technology Transfer Centre (RTTC) was created through a partnership between the State Enterprise “NPO Technomash” and three other companies. The centre's mission is to coordinate marketing activities for the Russian aerospace and other high-tech companies on the world and domestic markets.59 The centre will provide various services related to technology transfer activities and play an active role in the development of applicable laws and regulations. Technologies such as Personal Satellite Receiving Station, Discrete Data Block Encryption Methods and others can be requested directly from the RTTC development bank for further development. This is an example of the activity of the Director General of RASA to take over the Russian space sector from the military-industrial association. The Russian space sector is still in the process of this conversion.60

2.38 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Space Based Services Space Activities Results Space Products • Launching of payloads • Experience on long- • Propulsion units operating on into space duration space flights various fuel components • Communications and • Tourist space flights • On-board nuclear power TV broadcasting • Fundamental science sources • Earth remote sensing research results • Electric propulsion units • Navigation support • Methods of material • Actuation devices for the • Experimental facilities production in space motion control systems, environment docking systems, gyrodynes • Carbon composite materials, alloyed steels

Table 2.4: Russian Commercial Space activities61

2.4.5 Innovation Process

In Russia the distribution of orders and contracts to develop new technologies and projects is carried out by Rosaviakosmos as an official representative of the State. One of the unique features of Rosaviakosmos is that it fulfils two functions: it makes orders and it generates its own in-house orders/contracts. Identifying and prioritising key areas of technological innovation is based on the Russian Federal Space Programme (current 5-year programme was adopted in 2000) and on the prospective directions and trends in current science determined by Rosaviakosmos and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

There are two ways of performing the innovation process: either Rosaviakosmos orders R&D based on the Federal Space Programme, or industrial companies such as Russian Space Corporation (RSC) Energiya or Khrunichev can carry on development of new technologies/projects by themselves from their own enterprise funds. When such projects are listed in the Federal Space Programme the budget funding shows a zero figure and indicates that there is outside funding for the specific project.

Orders are allocated among research institutes, bureaux, companies or corporations on a competitive basis. The research is funded by the Russian government (i.e. from the budget). An order can be in the form of a separate technology, which is required either at the moment or for the future, or an on-going project/mission for which a development of a new technology may be needed. The results of the R&D are the property of the State represented by Rosaviakosmos.

After the order is ready, Rosaviakosmos delivers the new technology to the industry where it is tested and validated (this is the case when technology was developed by a pure research institution). According to the testing results the new technology can be approved or not. In the case of a successful experiment the new technology can be used in space exploration and missions in Russia, by any of the space companies involved in the development process.

It is important to note that Rosaviakosmos does not have R&D centres like NASA or ESA. Rosaviakosmos is more like NASA or ESA administration. In Russia, since Soviet times, large industrial space manufactures have had their own R&D departments or design bureaux. Therefore, when Rosaviakosmos orders research from a company like RSC Energiya (instead of a purely research institution such as the Russian Academy of Sciences) it means that RSC Energiya is conducting this R&D project and will probably use it for space industrial manufacturing in case of successful tests. There is little need for the government to deliver new technology to the industry because the research branches of the space industrial companies have already developed it.62

2.39

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

2.4.6 Key technology Thrusts

The key technology thrusts for the Russian space programme are: • The intention to maintain the status of a leading space nation, achieved by leadership in every space sector, especially human spaceflight; • Independent global satellite navigation capability (through the full operation of the Glonass system); • Space telecom infrastructure, necessary for a large country like Russia; • High resolution remote sensing; • Life sciences associated with the needs of a human mission to Mars. This space programme direction builds upon the lead in the field achieved by previous long duration human space flights and subsequent biomedical research.

However, in addition to the above the following gaps have to be considered as major problems of the Russian space programme: • Unavailability of high-tech telecommunication equipment, especially transponders; • Aging of satellites in service; • Aging of professionals in the field.63

2.4.7 Corporations Institutes, Research Centres

The relations between the corporations and institutes conducting space activities and RASA are quite complex. RASA has an "umbrella" presence in the space programme directly controlling or supervising activities, which can be government funded, commercially funded or funded in combination between the two.

A space corporation (or institute) in Russia may be: • Completely owned by RASA. Funded only by RASA; performs operations only for this organisation. • Governmental and partially subordinated to RASA. It is completely under government control but control of operations is shared by RASA with other ministries. Operations are dedicated to space or other activities according to the funding that each one of the "parent" governmental organisations contributes. • Fully or partially private. In this case the state owns some part of the company's stocks. The company conducts space operations and can be a contractor for RASA; RASA also registers and supervises international and domestic commercial contracts the company may have.

According to the type of corporation different types of activities are performed. The most characteristic corporation types are: • NII. Scientific Research Institute. It performs only basic research and may be involved only in the construction of very small and basic prototypes for concept ideas. • KB. Design Bureau. It undertakes design and prototype building of projects. After a design and testing project have been successfully completed the design bureau hands it over to a production corporation. The designation GP KB refers to design bureaux that are completely owned by the state. • NPO. Research and Production Association. This type of corporation can undertake any activity in the research, design and production fields. • PO. Production Association. Production facilities that only implement designs developed elsewhere. The designation GP PO refers to a state owned production association

Finally the designations OAO (Open Joint Stock Company) and AOZT (Closed Joint Stock Company) refer to the status of each company concerning its stocks.

2.40 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

It should be noted that even private companies, with totally private funding have to register their space related operations with RASA. The reasons for this registration are two-fold: First, to receive the appropriate registration and certification from the state (either by the State Research Institute for Machine Building - TsNIIMASH under RASA or by the companies themselves with state approval later). Second, under Russian law the corporations are obliged to give to RASA a part of their project profits.64

A list of major Russian space corporations and institutes is given in the appendix.

2.4.8 International Cooperation

Through the '90s and early '00s Russia has demonstrated significant willingness to cooperate in international projects. The main items that should be considered when examining the cooperation prospects with Russia are the following: • Russia currently has underutilized space capabilities that include mature and quite advanced space technologies in many different sectors. The country is considered a leader in many space fields.65 • Russia's interest in space cooperation is primarily economic, with the aim to support the industry of this sector that is now deprived of the governmental financial support it received the past.66 • There have been a number of very successful enterprise projects, primarily between Russia and the US (ILS, Sea-launch), or European companies (Starsem) which have demonstrated that under the right conditions a modern space project can benefit from the lower prices offered by the Russian space inventory and the expertise of its specialists. Attention should be paid to the example of the ISS where Russia (contrary to western analysts' comments and despite its economic troubles) has been a major contributor, critical for the success of the ISS project.67 It has also been the main supporter of the project after the Columbia accident. • Russia considers participating in joint space undertakings important for its strategic goals so it would welcome possible European proposals in this direction. Russia has illustrated its cooperative interests by proposing a pan-European non-strategic missile defence system.68 • Space is an item of pride for the Russian public and many people in the space sector are prepared and determined to work for its success and have already done so even under very unfavourable conditions in the current economic situation. • Despite the difficulties, the Russian space programme seems to be rebounding to a stable status. Possible improvement in the Russian economic situation would probably lead to expansion of space activities.69

It must also be mentioned that there is considerable cooperation between China and Russia, constituting a long-term relationship in the space sector. Russia has provided considerable assistance to China to develop independent capabilities, (that could even offer alternatives in the market), as long as there was an appropriate business deal associated with these exchanges. This relation appears to remain stable for the future even among shifting political priorities in the post September 11th world situation.70

In combination with the above mentioned optimistic assessments, other aspects of the Russian space programme should also be considered: • Although the US has also been an importer of space technology from Russia there are technology transfer issues that may prevent future cooperation in common research and development. More specifically Russia has been accused in the past of providing technology related to space (launcher know-how etc.) to "rogue states" (like Iran and North Korea)71. • Additionally, although beneficial for both states, Russia's cooperation with China in the space sector is monitored closely by the United States as it considers China a possible strategic adversary.

2.41

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Concerning Russian cooperation with Europe, it has been in effect since the Soviet time either directly with ESA or through the various European national agencies. More specifically the French Space Agency (CNES) has sent a number of astronauts to space, and ESA has participated in the “Euromir” missions and more recently has purchased seats on Soyuz taxi flight to the ISS, taking European astronauts to orbit. European microgravity experiments fly regularly on the Foton platform. The most important development has been the agreement of February 2003 that will allow the launch of the Russian Soyuz spacecraft from Kourou72 and defines a cooperation plan between the agencies for the next 10 years.73

REFERENCES

1 Edict No. 185 of the President of Russian Federation about structure of management of space activity in Russian Federation, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/annex_14.htm, accessed Aug. 10 2003 2 Russian Aviation and Space Agency: Organisational Structure http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/rsa.htm#cnt02, accessed Aug. 12 2003 3 Tolyarenko, N.: Space Activities and Policy of Russia, presentation for the Master of Space Studies Programme 2000 / 2001, International Space University, Strasbourg, November 2000 4 Ibid. 5 Russian Space Agency: http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/english/eindex.html, Aug. 25, 2003 6 RosAviaKosmos: Основные Направления Космической Деятельности России (Basic Directions of the Space Activity of Russia), http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/cp1251/maindir.html, August 25, 2003 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Russian Space Agency: http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/english/eindex.html, Aug. 25, 2003 10 Federal Government: Критические технологии федерального уровня (Critical Technologies of the Federal Level), http://www.extech.msk.su/s_e/min_s/niokr/krittech/krtech-m.htm, August 25, 2003 11 RosAviaKosmos: Основные Направления Космической Деятельности России (Basic Directions of the Space Activity of Russia), http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/cp1251/maindir.html, August 25, 2003 12 Law of the Russian Federation: On Space Activity, Art 2, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/annex_12.htm, August. 08, 2003 13 Russian Federation, Chapter 5 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm, August 25, 2003 14 Law of the Russian Federation: On Space Activity, Art 5, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/annex_12.htm, August. 08, 2003 15 Ibid. Art. 6 16 Tolyarenko, N.: Space Activities and Policy of Russia, presentation for the Master of Space Studies Programme 2000 / 2001, International Space University, Strasbourg, November 2000 17 The Russian Federation: Statement on the Priorities of Space Policy of Russian Federation. http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/annex_13.htm, August. 10, 2003 18 The merging of space science and industry, the protracted investment cycle and high degree of commercial risk, the difficulty in obtaining a direct return on invested capital etc. require special economic approaches 19 Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation, No. 1282, On State Support and Backing for Space Activity In the Russian Federation, 11 December 1993, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/pp931282.htm, August 11, 2003 20 Government of the Russian Federation, "Statement on the Priorities of Space Policy" 21 Ibid. 22 Fassakhova, A.: Russian Space Legislation, United Nations-International Institute of Air & Space Law, presented at Workshop on Capacity Building In Space Law, The Hague, The Netherlands, 19 November 2002, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SAP/act2002/spacelaw/presentations/Fassakhova_A_files/frame.htm, August 10, 2003 23 Law of the Russian Federation: “On Space Activity”, Art 17, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/annex_12.htm, August. 08, 2003 24 United Nations-Office for Outer Space Affairs: No. 104-Statute on Licensing Space Operations, Unofficial Translation, 2 February 1996, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/national/russian_federation/decree_104_1996E.html, August 11, 2003 25 Fassakhova, A.: Russian Space Legislation, United Nations-International Institute of Air & Space Law, presented at Workshop on Capacity Building In Space Law, The Hague, The Netherlands, 19 November 2002,

2.42 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SAP/act2002/spacelaw/presentations/Fassakhova_A_files/frame.htm, August 10, 2003 26 International Telecommunication Development Bureau: Russian Federation: Priority telecommunication development orientation in Russia, Sofia, Bulgaria, November 28-30, 2000 27 Law of the Russian Federation: “On Space Activity”, Art 12, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/annex_12.htm, August. 08, 2003 28 Ibid. 29 ISU-SSP Team: Barriers to Global Space Industrial Cooperation, presented to Astrium, Bremen, Germany, September 12, 2001 30 Nuclear Threat Initiative: Russia: Export control Legislation, http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/excon/laws.htm, August 9, 2003 31 Michael B., Maria K. and Igor K.: Assessing Proliferation Controls in Russia, Centre for International Trade and Security, 2001, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_Russia_2001.htm, August 20, 2003 32 ISU-SSP Team: Barriers to Global Space Industrial Cooperation, presented to Astrium, Bremen, Germany, September 12, 2001 33 Law of the Russian Federation: “On Space Activity”, Art 26-28, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/annex_12.htm, August. 08, 2003 34 For this chapter we have received extensive help from Ms. Nataliya Tokarevskaya, Legal Adviser, Joint Stock Company for the Construction of Oil and Gas Projects "ZANGAS" 35 Covault, C: 95,000 Russian layoffs, launch breakdown feared, Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 15, 1993 36 Harvey, B.: Russia in Space. The Failed Frontier?, Springer Praxis, Chichester, UK, 2001 37 Ibid. 38 Vick, C. and Tarsenko, M.: Economics of Space Activity in Russia, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/chap_2.htm, August 26, 2003 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 O. Zdanovich, "Organisation And Structure Of Russian Space Activities", presentation at the International Space University, Summer Session Programme, Strasbourg, France, July 2003, slide 15 42 Federation of American Scientists pages on the Russian Aviation and Space Agency, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/RASA.htm, accessed Aug. 20 2003 43 Economics of Space Activity in Russia, Vick and Tarsenko, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/chap 2.htm, August 26, 2003 44 Russian Aviation and Space Agency: Organisational Structure http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/rsa.htm#cnt02, accessed Aug. 12 2003 45 Gaugert, A.: Public funding of space activities: a case of semantics and misdirection, Space Policy, vol. 18, pp287 - 92 46 Zdanovich, O.: Organisation And Structure Of Russian Space Activities, presentation at the International Space University, Summer Session Programme, Strasbourg, France, July 2003 47 SpaceDaily news site: Russian space agency gets 100 million dollar budget boost, August 19, 2003, http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030819160311.ouh2tkvb.html, August 20, 2003 48 SpaceToday news site: Russian space agency to get budget increase, August 21, 2003, http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/1867, August 22, 2003 49 Longsdon J.M., and Millar, J.R.: US-Russian Cooperation in human space-flight: assessing the impacts, Space Policy, Vol. 17, pp 171 - 8 50 Ibid. 51 http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/english/enews.html, accessed Aug. 26, 2003 52 The General Accounting Office: Status of Russian ISS Involvement and Cost Controls, GAO report, www.gao.gov August 26, 2003 53 Sharon LaFraniere, The Washington Post: Russia Says Spending On Space Will Rise, http://www.rusnet.nl/news/2003/04/05/report02.shtml Washington Post Saturday, April 5, 2003, August 29, 2003 54 Pravda: Rosoboronexport chief: Russia may lose ISS, http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2003/08/21/49464.html, August 26, 2003 55 Data from Dr. Walter Peeters, ESA 56 http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/english/ecoom.html, August 26, 2003 57 Bond, P.: The Continuing Story if the International Space Station, Springer Praxis, Chichester, UK, 2002 58 Ibid. 59 http://www.rusttc.ru/eng/Firma/index.htm

2.43

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

60 Commercialisation of space activities, http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/english/ecoom.html, accessed August 26, 2003 61 Ibid. 62 Was Prepared with the help of Ms. Olga Zdanovich 63 Was Prepared with the help of Ms. Olga Zdanovich 64 This Section was prepared thanks to the practical information offered by Professor Nikolai Tolyarenko of ISU. 65 Le Guen: Cooperation between the European and Russian aerospace industries, presented at the Technological and Aerospace Committee of the Western European Union Interparliamentary Security and Defense Assembly, DOCUMENT A/1821, 4 June 2003, http://www.assembly- weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2003/1821.html, August 20, 2003 66 Ibid. 67 Harvey, B.: Russia in Space, The Failed Frontier?, Springer Praxis books in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 2001 68 Le Guen: Cooperation between the European and Russian aerospace industries, presented at the Technological and Aerospace Committee of the Western European Union Interparliamentary Security and Defense Assembly, DOCUMENT A/1821, 4 June 2003, http://www.assembly- weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2003/1821.html, August 20, 2003 69 Ibid. 70 People's Daily Newspaper Online: China-Russian Relations Remain Better Than Russian-US Ties, of November 28, 2002, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/28/print20021128_107614.html, Aug. 20, 2003 71 Le Guen: Cooperation between the European and Russian aerospace industries, presented at the Technological and Aerospace Committee of the Western European Union Interparliamentary Security and Defense Assembly, DOCUMENT A/1821, 4 June 2003, http://www.assembly- weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2003/1821.html, August 20, 2003 72 SpaceDaily news site: Europe and Russia Do Soyuz Deal, Feb 12, 2003, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/launcher-soyuz-03a.html, August 20, 2003 73 Russia - The European Space Agency at the MAKS 2003 International Aviation and Space Salon, 9 July 2003, http://www.esa.int/export-ind/ESA-Article-art_print_friendly_1054042925175.html, August 26, 2003

2.44 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

2.5 United States of America

2.5.1 Introduction

Within the United States, numerous agencies participate in the development, operation, and oversight of space missions. For purposes of this technology survey, we have considered only the planned, funded missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This scope results in two significant limitations. First, many innovative technologies will not be included in our survey because they are not part of funded NASA missions with anticipated launch dates. Research being conducted on these other technologies, whether within NASA or by commercial entities, may be sufficiently-developed to include on a map similar to the one presented in this survey. However, time limitations caused us to focus on only planned missions. For the same reason, we typically did not include technologies being developed as part of a Technology Demonstration. We made exceptions for the New Millenium Program, Integrity, and SPHERES due to the breadth of those projects and their relevance to the Case Studies.

Second, while the scope of our project does not permit a technology survey broader than NASA, we should mention the other United States agencies that contribute to the operation of and data processing for the country’s space missions. For example, as part of its broader mission, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates two environmental satellite systems. NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and to conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet the United States’ economic, social, and environmental needs.1 To achieve this mission, NOAA collaborates with other agencies, such as NASA, to develop and operate new technologies and techniques, such as weather and water forecast modelling to improve the accuracy and timeliness of its prediction capabilities and services.2 NOAA has three major commitments: (1) to build an end-to-end system of integrated global observations of atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial variables; (2) to enhance scientific understanding of past climate variations and present atmospheric, oceanic, and land–surface processes that influence climate; and (3) to apply this improved understanding to create more reliable climate predictions on all time scales.3

The United States Geological Survey (USGS), a bureau of the Department of the Interior, also works cooperatively with NASA on projects, particularly the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM). 4 The primary objective of the LDCM is to collect consistently-calibrated Earth imagery. Landsat’s global survey mission is to acquire data to ensure repetitive observations over the Earth’s land mass, coastal boundaries, and coral reefs and to ensure the data can be used consistently to support the scientific objectives of monitoring changes in the Earth’s land surface.5 NASA was responsible for developing and launching Landsat spacecraft, while the USGS is currently responsible for flight operations, maintenance, and management of all ground data reception, processing, archiving, product generation, and distribution of Landsat data, now the longest continuous space-based remote sensing dataset in the world.6 The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) provides access to geospatial intelligence and databases for Landsat and other imagery-producing satellites.7

The Department of Energy and Department of Defense also collaborate closely with NASA on space activities, such as the Prometheus Project (discussed below) and the Global Positioning System (GPS). The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the central research and development organisation for the Department of Defense, and is responsible for many innovative technologies with both civilian and military uses.8 Due to limitations in our mission scope, particularly our focus on purely civilian technologies, we have not included the projects of these agencies and organisations in this report.

2.45

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

2.5.2 Agency Organisation and Structure

NASA is one of many federal agencies in the United States Government. It is an independent agency within the Executive Branch led by the President of the United States, as shown in Figure 2.13.

Figure 2.13: NASA’s placement in the federal government.9

NASA is composed of Headquarters (located in Washington, DC), nine field centres [Table 1], and a variety of support installations.10 The field centres are scattered across the country in Texas, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, California, Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. Most centres are organised around an area of expertise for particular types of missions or projects, but the lines of authority also overlap.

To carry out its work, NASA is further organised into six Enterprises, which cross field centre boundaries: Space Science, Earth Science, Biological and Physical Research Science, Aerospace Technology, Education, and Space Flight.11 Each Enterprise has one or more Programme Office(s) to handle the programmes within the Enterprise. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is also considered a field centre; it is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility run by Cal-Tech University in Pasadena, California. The organisation chart shown in Figure 2.14 describes the internal structure of NASA.

2.46 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Figure 2.14: NASA organisation chart.12

2.5.3 Agency Strategy and Vision

NASA publishes its strategic plans and vision statements. Although couched in very broad terms, NASA’s vision of expanding scientific knowledge and exploring for life in the universe remains consistent.

NASA’s 2000 Strategy Plan stated, “NASA is an investment in America’s future. As explorers, pioneers, and innovators, we boldly expand frontiers in air and space to inspire and serve America and to benefit the quality of life on Earth.”13 To achieve these purposes, NASA dedicated itself to three principal missions: (1) to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe; (2) to advance human exploration, use, and development of space; and (3) to research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.14

After a change in NASA Administrators and with deliberate consideration and revision, NASA issued its Vision 2002, with three simple goals: • To improve life here; • To extend life to there; and • To find life beyond.15

Most recently, NASA issued its 2003 Strategy Plan, which reaffirmed these visions.16 To implement this strategy plan, NASA articulated three broad missions and ten goals:

1. Mission I: To Understand and Protect Our Home Planet

• Goal 1: Understand Earth’s system and apply Earth-system science to improve the prediction of climate, weather, and natural hazards; • Goal 2: Enable a safer, more secure, efficient, and environmentally friendly air transportation system; • Goal 3: Create a more secure world and improve the quality of life by investing in technologies and collaborating with other agencies, industry, and academia.

2.47

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

2. Mission II: To Explore the Universe and Search for Life

• Goal 4: Explore the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology through research in the unique natural laboratory of space; • Goal 5: Explore the solar system and the universe beyond, understand the origin and evolution of life, and search for evidence of life elsewhere.

3. Mission III: To Inspire the Next Generation of Explorers

• Goal 6: Inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; • Goal 7: Engage the public in shaping and sharing the experience of exploration and discovery; • Goal 8: Ensure the provision of space access and improve it by increasing safety, reliability, and affordability; • Goal 9: Extend the duration and boundaries of human space flight to create new opportunities for exploration and discovery; • Goal 10: Enable revolutionary capabilities through new technology. 17

The 2003 Strategy Plan provides NASA with a clear, unified, and long-term direction for all of its space activities and the context for planning and programme development. Each Enterprise develops and administers its own strategy plan, consistent with these missions and goals. For example, on June 12, 2003, under the guidance of the strategy plan, the Advisory Committee of the Space Science Enterprise issued a draft of its “2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy.”18

NASA’s activities must contribute to the achievement of one or more of the stated goals through its associated objectives. These contributions are measured by the long-term and annual performance criteria that constitute NASA’s Performance Plan, and the results are included in NASA’s annual budget submission to Congress.19 This structure ensures that NASA is directly accountable for its performance, and that the results of every NASA programme are publicly visible and traceable to the agency’s vision and mission.20 Congressional reaction to the Columbia Shuttle explosion remains to be seen, but it has already resulted in a delay in the appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004.21

2.5.4 Policy and Law

In the United States, national law is created within three governmental branches: judicial, legislative, and administrative. Judicial law is made by the court system. Legislative space law is made primarily by “acts” of the United States Congress that are subsequently codified as “statutes.” Administrative law is generated by the agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), often in the form of rules and regulations. Numerous other administrative documents may be generated that state the policy of the United States, its Departments, or its agencies. These administrative regulations and documents control the space activities of industry and the government at a very detailed level.

2.48 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Satellite Launch Remote Navigation Comm. Services Sensing National Security Council X X X X Office of Science and Technology Policy X X X X Department of Transportation XX X Department of Commerce X X X X (Office of Commercial Space) Department of Commerce (NOAA) XX Department of the Interior (USGS) X Department of Defense (DTRA) X X X Air Force Space Command X X X XX Federal Communications Commission XX X National Imagery & Mapping Agency XX X National Reconnaissance Office X XX X NASA X Table 2.5: Involvement of Governmental Agencies in Space Activities

SOURCE: Based on “Commercial Space Policy Making Processes and Institutions in the United States.”22 (One X indicates some involvement; two X’s indicate significant involvement.)

NASA was created as a civil agency by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as subsequently amended (Space Act).23 The Space Act states the United States’ space policies and characterizes the relationship between the government and private industry. Consistent with its obligations under the United Nations Outer Space Treaty, Congress expressly stated its policy that space activities shall be devoted to peaceful uses for the benefit of all mankind.24 The Space Act nonetheless creates an exception for weapons systems, military operations, and the defence of the United States, which is the responsibility of the Department of Defense.25

In the Space Act, Congress also encouraged, to the fullest extent possible, the commercial use of space. The law as amended provides that NASA shall purchase launch services from commercial providers unless (a) it needs the unique capabilities of the shuttle; (b) cost-effective private services are not reasonably available; (c) private services create an unacceptable risk of loss; or (d) there are national security or foreign policy concerns.26 The second and third points ensure that private industry has an incentive to provide safe, reliable, and reasonably-priced launch services.

Other United States statutes govern specific areas of space activities by private industry. For example, the Commercial Space Launch Activities Act, as amended by the Commercial Space Act (collectively Launch Act), establishes laws and the regulatory framework for launch and re-entry activities and launch site operations.27 Such laws were made necessary by international obligations under the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention, which impose requirements on nations to supervise the space activities of private companies operating under their jurisdiction.28 The Launch Act encourages private sector launches and urges regulation of industry only to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the country’s international obligations and to protect public health and safety.29 Under the Launch Act and the regulations adopted by the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a license is required to launch a vehicle, to provide re-entry services, or to operate a launch site in the United States.30 The FAA has authority under the Launch Act to create license requirements to protect public health and safety or national security and foreign policy. It also has authority to waive all such requirements for the same policy reasons.31

2.49

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

The Administration is currently evaluating a new space transportation policy that is likely to address reusable launch vehicles and transportation needs for long-distance human missions. This policy effort has been put on hold due to the Columbia shuttle accident. With the recent release of the accident investigation report,32 the Administration will address the long-term health of the country’s transportation capabilities and its vision for the future.

Congress has implemented a similar commercial policy in the remote sensing field. The Land Remote Sensing Commercialisation Act of 198433 and Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 199234 seek to promote the commercial development of remote sensing space-based services, ground services, and data processing and distribution. The latter act specifically provides that the purposes of the law include: (1) stimulating the development of a commercial market for unenhanced data and value- added services through competition within the private sector for Landsat 7; (2) developing the remote sensing market; and (3) providing commercial value-added services exclusively through the private sector.35 The law also requires NOAA to license remote sensing systems and requires operators to make certain data available on a non-discriminatory basis under reasonable terms and conditions.36 Regulations promulgated under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act specify the licensing procedures and conditions.37

In furtherance of these policies, the President issued a policy directive in April, 2003, to reiterate the government’s commitment to using commercial remote sensing space capabilities to the maximum practical extent.38 The directive establishes a federal policy of strengthening commercial remote sensing while protecting United States national security and foreign policy interests.39

Several statutes govern the satellite telecommunications field and the allocation of frequencies and orbital slots.40 The FCC adopted regulations and rules to implement these laws and acts as the intermediary to effect the spectrum allocations of the International Telecommunications Union.41

The United States has adopted several statutes giving intellectual property rights and protections for technology developed for or in space. In particular, the United States patent law provides that any invention made, used or sold in outer space on a space object under the jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered to be made, used or sold within the United States.42 Intellectual property protections may be available not only for the technologies, but also for the process and the products generated by the technologies.43

While these laws promote commercial development, the United States also adopted stringent controls of technology exports, designed to prevent unlicensed transfers of that technology outside of the United States and to protect national security interests. As can be seen below, these export control laws are controlled by several agencies and departments, often with overlapping authority.

2.50 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

UnitedUnited States:States: ExportExport PolicyPolicy RegimeRegime

Congress • Arms Export Administration Act Executive Office of • Export Administration Act • Satellite Trade and Security Act Laws President (National • Approval of transactions >$50m Security Council) • Sets policy • Interagency coordination • SIG-Space (GW Bush)

Policies

Department of State Department of Department of Defense Commerce • Arms (ITAR) license approvals • Participation in all license • Dual use (CCL) License • MTCR participation approval processes approvals • Defense Trade Security Initiative • Wassenaar Agreement participation

Figure 2.15: United States Export Policy Regime

SOURCE: “Commercial Space Policy Making Processes and Institutions in the United States.”44

In most cases, the controls permit the transactions under a general license or through broad regulatory exemptions, but each statute and regulation has unique requirements. Historically, US technology controls have been applied to munitions or weapons systems for reasons of national security. Because space technologies often can be used in both military and civilian applications, these dual-use space technologies are usually regulated under these export controls. Due to these national security issues, the United States Department of State maintains a list of debarred parties who are prohibited from participating in any transaction in which a State Department licensee is involved.45 The State Department regulates the export of munitions and technologies that are specifically designed or modified for military use, under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.46 The State Department may designate a technology as a “munition” if, in its opinion, national security concerns warrant the control.47 The State Department can impose fines and imprisonment and can debar a violator, so that it becomes ineligible to receive State Department licensed technology.48

The Bureau of Industry and Security in the United States Department of Commerce has concurrent jurisdiction with the Department of State over exports of space technologies. Many times the jurisdictional lines are not clearly drawn, with both Departments claiming jurisdiction and imposing different and potentially contradictory regulations. Because the Department of State authority derives from national security concerns, its jurisdictional decision will be controlling. Like the Department of State, the Department of Commerce also has authority to prohibit assistance with an export transaction involving parties or entities determined to have violated United States export control laws.49 Prior to initiating a transaction, the exporter must ensure that the other party is not on the Commerce Department Denied Persons List and Entities List. Export violations under the Commerce rules can result in civil penalties and denial of export privileges.50

2.51

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

As discussed infra at section 2.5.9, these technology export controls can make international cooperation difficult. Space-related projects may not be possible, if the projects require a sharing of sensitive technologies, processes, or systems. Some sectors of the United States have witnessed a decline in business that may be due to complications in the export process. Data compiled by the Satellite Industry Association (SIA) showed that in 1997, when satellite exports were regulated by the U.S. Department of Commerce, American companies won 76% of all orders for geostationary- orbiting telecommunication satellites, with the remaining business going to European companies. 51 In 1998, U.S. companies retained a 73% market share. In 1999, following the transfer of export controls to the Department of State and the imposition of tighter export controls, U.S. manufacturers only won 12 of 23 commercial satellite orders placed, with their market share dropping to 52%.52 The trend continued in 2002, with satellite manufacturing revenues in the United States growing by only 16%, compared to a 27% growth worldwide.53

Similarly, the global launch industry revenues grew by 23% in 2002, but United States revenues for launch services declined by 9%.54 This decline is attributable to both fewer launches and lower launch prices. However, the significance of latter factor is offset by a similar reduction in launch prices worldwide.55 There is a perception that United States export controls impose barriers to satellite launches.56 Whether real or not, the perception becomes self-fulfilling.

The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry concluded in its Final Report that: “One of the primary obstacles to the health and competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace industry is our own export control regime….[C]urrent export controls are increasingly counterproductive to our national security interests in their current form and under current practices of implementation..”57 Indeed, it found that export controls were undermining the collaboration between companies in alliance countries for new system development and that foreign companies instructed their design engineers to avoid American components because of the problems associated with obtaining government licensing approval.58

The Commission recognized, “The current approach to export controls is increasingly “The current approach to export controls is isolating the American aerospace industry increasingly isolating the American aerospace from the commercial sector in an 59 industry from the commercial sector in an unproductive cocoon of regulation.” unproductive cocoon of regulation.” Among other reasons, the current system “fails to distinguish between friend and foe, between cutting-edge and pedestrian technology.”60 The Commission recommended a “thorough overhaul” of the U.S. export control system, including creation of different licensing mechanisms, expanded waivers for allies, and updating the munitions list.61 It remains to be seen whether the Administration or Congress will accept these recommendations, but the Commission report will add further political pressure on export reforms.

2.5.5 Agency Funding and Budget

The entire annual budget of the United States government is submitted by the Administration, through the President, to the Congress for authorisation and the appropriation of funds.62 NASA funding, as one subset of the national budget, is the result of two separate processes. The first process of Congressional authorisation leads to the approval of space programmes. The second process ends with the funding of an approved NASA budget through Congressional appropriation.63

To begin the process of seeking authorisation and appropriation, NASA Enterprise Programme Offices and field centres submit their project concepts to NASA headquarters for review and approval.64 NASA completes an analysis of its operational, project, and contractor costs, projecting its budget needs for at least five years into the future.65 At this point, experts and advisors review all field

2.52 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

centre projects, giving recommendations to NASA’s administrators on whether particular programmes should be pursued and the projected costs of these programmes.66 Table 2.6 reflects NASA’s published projections to the year 2008, separated by each Enterprise.

Table 2.6: FY2004 Agency Budget Summary Table.67

Once NASA’s administrators have approved the proposed slate of space programmes and the proposed budget, a full agency proposal is submitted to the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for consideration in conjunction with the President’s overall priorities.68 Negotiations occur between the OMB and NASA for modifications to the proposed programme slate and budget.69 After the resulting policy and programme slate have been approved within the Administration, the national budget is submitted to Congress for authorisation and appropriation.

2.53

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

In the authorisation process, a Congressional committee considers the types of missions and programmes proposed by NASA.70 It can cut programmes or add programmes of interest to Congress.71 The annual authorisations bill must be approved by a vote of Congress. Authorisation to proceed with particular programmes does not mean, however, that NASA will have the funding to proceed.72 As a result, a programme might be authorized in one year, but Congress might not appropriate any money for the programme.

Funding results from Congressional approval of an appropriations bill. Federal government spending falls into 2 broad categories: mandatory spending and discretionary spending.73 NASA's funding is treated as discretionary spending because the law does not mandate that federal monies be spent on NASA programmes.74

NASA’s funding for its operations and approved programmes is appropriated by Congress on an annual basis, with a fiscal year beginning on October 1 of each year.75 The budget request is typically submitted to the OMB in the early spring before the beginning of the fiscal year. For example, funding requests for FY 2004 (which begins on October 1, 2003) were submitted in the Spring of 2003. In that proposed budget, NASA requested a little more than US$15,000,000,000.76 Appropriations bills have received preliminary consideration, but as of the date of this survey, no appropriations for FY 2004 had been made.77 Congress had been awaiting the results from the newly- released report of the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation Board before further work on the NASA budget.78 Based on the results of this report, NASA and the OMB are now renegotiating NASA’s proposed supplemental budget.79 In the past three years, NASA’s budget for space missions has ranged from US$14,000,000,000 to US$15,000,000,000, or 0.9% of total federal expenditures.80

2.5.6 Innovation Process

To stir innovation, NASA seeks new processes and technologies to advance manufacturing techniques, certification procedures, design methodologies, and technical concepts for the entire lifespan of space vehicles.81 NASA has both internal and external innovation processes for technology.

For instance, advanced design teams within NASA may look fifteen to twenty years into the future to gauge NASA’s technologies requirements. For technologies that are low on NASA’s Technology Readiness Levels, the teams can approve preliminary design and testing of these technologies. For technology ideas that prove to have merit at a preliminary design level, the advanced design team will seek approval from management to pursue development of the technologies, with the aim of improving overall mission efficiency and cost.

Technology demonstrations constitute another internal innovation process. Because few planned missions want to rely on untested technologies for their success, technology demonstrations permit the development and testing of technology apart from planned missions.

One current example is the New Millennium Programme (NMP), which includes Earth Observing 3 (EO3), Space Technology 5 (ST5), and Space Technology 6 (ST6). NMP’s purpose is to conduct testing of breakthrough technologies in a space environment without the “risk of first use” so they can be infused into a new generation of future space science and Earth science missions.82 EO3 will test new remote sensing technologies in orbit around the Earth to improve future weather forecasting.83 ST5 focuses more on the concept of building miniature spacecraft, such as nanosats.84 ST6 deals with two particular advanced technologies, the Autonomous Sciencecraft Experiment and the Inertial Stellar Compass.85 These technologies will be tested in space in approximately 2004-05. If successful, the further development and use of the technologies might be pursued.

2.54 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

The Synchronized Position Hold, Engage, Reorient Experimental Satellites (SPHERES) formation flight testbed is another example of a type of technology demonstration. SPHERES is a NASA project out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to provide a long-term and upgradable testbed for the validation of high risk control, metrology, and autonomy technologies. The technologies are critical to the operation of distributed satellite and docking missions such as TechSat21, Starlight, Terrestrial Planet Finder, and Orbital Express.86 To simulate the mission dynamics, the testbed consists of three microsatellites, or "spheres," which can control their relative positions and orientations, and are operable on a 2-D laboratory platform, NASA's KC-135, and the International Space Station.87 The ability to autonomously coordinate and synchronize multiple spacecraft in tightly controlled spatial configurations could enable a variety of new and innovative mission operations concepts. Because the development and application of these algorithms may be too risky on orbit, the SPHERES testbed provides a useful intermediate step where algorithms can be verified and the algorithm development process can be validated.88

NASA also uses external processes for the innovation of technology. One unique process is based on NASA’s relationship with the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), a group run by the Universities Space Research Association, that solicits ideas from the general public to satisfy particular technology needs.89 Applicants must submit their proposals in the form and manner required by NIAC.90 The Institute receives funding from NASA to explore broad technological concepts and independently allocates that funding to the applicants on each of the projects it wishes to pursue.91 The Institute prepares reports for NASA regarding progress and innovations in the technology areas. If technology ideas become sufficiently developed, applicants can solicit funding on their own for further development.

NASA also offers small-scale opportunities for funding or resource-sharing with its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programmes. Both of these programmes are targeted at providing small businesses opportunities to participate in federal research and development.92 The SBIR programme’s specific objectives are, “to stimulate U.S. technological innovation, use small businesses to meet federal research and development needs, foster and encourage participation in technological innovation by socially and economically disadvantaged persons, and increase private-sector commercialisation of innovations….”93 Under this programme, NASA solicits technology needs from its Enterprises and issues a public Announcement of Opportunity. Small businesses may submit proposals in response to the announcement, and NASA will determine if the proposal is technically feasible and if it will meet the Enterprises’ needs. A comprehensive website will lead prospective proposers through the required process.94 If accepted, the proposal will be funded in stages depending on the developmental success. To complete development of promising technologies, the small businesses can seek further funding from the Enterprises.

The STTR programme also awards contracts to small business concerns for cooperative research and development with a research institution. STTR, though modeled after the SBIR Program, is a separate activity and is separately funded. The main difference between SBIR and STTR is the role of an independent, non-profit research entity. The STTR programme requires that the small firm collaborate with an entity such as a university, federal lab, or another acceptable non-profit research organisation on both Phase I and II of the project. Another major difference between SBIR and STTR is the number of participating agencies. There are ten agencies making SBIR awards, while only five of them (Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, NASA, and Department of Energy) participate in STTR.

NASA also uses the Innovative Technology Transfer Partnership to develop new technologies to support Enterprise programmes.95 This partnership is designed to enhance NASA's Mission by expanding partnerships among NASA Enterprises, non-aerospace U.S. industrial firms, and the venture capital community for innovative technology development.96

2.55

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Throughout the agency, these innovation processes are developed in various ways. For example, at NASA’s Stennis Space Center, the Office of Technology Transfer and Development created a Dual Use Technology Development Program, utilising cooperative agreements between NASA and industry partners, to develop or enhance technologies to meet specific NASA needs.97 Each year, technology needs at Stennis Space Center are identified as potential projects. After it has been determined that a technology is not commercially available that will meet the specific NASA need, a Cooperative Agreement Notice is prepared to solicit proposals for the development of the technology.98 Interested companies submit proposals in response. In these cooperative agreements between NASA and the industry partner, the partner is required to contribute at least fifty percent of the total resources needed to accomplish the cooperative agreement, in any combination of cash or non-cash investment.99

Through these various internal and external processes, NASA seeks innovative technologies. Each field centre and each Enterprise has some latitude in the implementation of these technology development goals, and the agency as a whole strives to engage the public, private institutions, academia, and industry to cooperate in this effort.

2.5.7 Key Initiatives

Based on NASA’s 2003 Strategy Plan100 and our survey of the planned missions, several key initiatives can be discerned. For implementation of its planned and future missions, NASA has been investing new budget monies to the following areas:

Transportation

One service thrust is to provide safe, reliable, and economical transportation to and from space, and throughout the solar system.101 The Next Generation Launch Technology Programme and Orbital Space Plane Mission are two of the more prominent transportation initiatives. Because these transportation initiatives are in their infancy, the technologies associated with them could not be researched or included in the tables. We include a short description of these important initiatives here, acknowledging that they may undergo significant reformation once the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report has been analysed.

NASA’s Orbital Space Plane (OSP) programme will support the International Space Station requirements for crew rescue, crew transport and contingency cargo such as supplies, food and other needed equipment.102 The Space Plane, which may include multiple vehicles, will enable a larger permanent crew to occupy the orbiting research facility, increasing science and research capabilities in space. The OSP has emerged from NASA’s Space Launch Initiative, begun in February 2001, which sought to identify feasible options for future NASA space transportation and to determine if the agency should proceed with full-scale development of a new reusable launch vehicle system.103 The OSP programme will develop the entire space transportation system including ground operations and all supporting technologies needed to conduct missions to and from the International Space Station.

The Next Generation Launch Technology Programme seeks to develop and mature innovative technologies for safe, reliable, and lower-cost transportation beyond Earth orbit.104 The programme will pursue three significant technology areas: reusable liquid-oxygen/liquid-kerosene rocket booster engine; hypersonic, air-breathing propulsion and airframe systems; and cross-cutting launch vehicle system technologies to support various launch and flight vehicle architectures.105 NASA will decide in 2004 whether to proceed with the risk-mitigation phase of this programme, which includes research and testing of large-scale tanks, structures, and engines. By 2009, NASA will decide whether to proceed to full development of a specific vehicle meeting the programme requirements.106

2.56 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Human Capabilities

To support human short-term and long-term missions in space, NASA is working to understand human limitations in space and to develop technologies to overcome those limitations.107 For example, in its Integrity Mission, NASA will pursue the development of more comfortable environment control and life support systems.108 Our survey team notes that, in this area, it may be particularly useful for NASA to develop regenerative systems. Likewise, as proposed for Integrity, human physiology, space medicine, and psychology should be simulated and tested on Earth, with results that prove the conditions will be safe and effective for the crew.

Robotics

NASA intends to build robotic instruments to perform very complicated tasks, millions of miles from Earth.109 A precursor to human flight missions, robots can travel to other planets where the environments are not suitable for humans. NASA views its robots and spacecraft as its “eyes and ears on these distant planets.”110 If used for long-term missions, the robots will need to have high artificial intelligence, substantial autonomy, and long life cycles.111

Power/Propulsion

NASA has been focusing on technology to provide sufficient power for propulsion and science exploration of the outer solar system. In particular, NASA’s efforts have been aimed at nuclear and solar power and propulsion, such as the Dawn Mission’s development of ion propulsion.112 The Prometheus Project, for nuclear fission power and propulsion, may be funded in the FY 2004 budget, but it is still classified as only a technology demonstration.113 Therefore, it is not included in our survey, although this project will become increasingly important in the near future.

Communications

Consistent with its focus on long-term scientific exploration of the outer solar system, NASA has been exploring communication systems that are robust enough to support these missions. NASA will try to develop technologies that provide efficient data transfer across the solar system.114 The Integrity Mission and TWINS Mission promise to aid in this endeavour.

2.5.8 Relationships Among the Agency and Other Groups or Institutions

In the development and utilisation of space technologies, NASA maintains close ties with many external groups. Some of these relationships exist because of contractual commitments that NASA makes with industry to create needed technologies. For large, new projects, NASA will submit Requests for Proposal to industry. From the responses, NASA will select from qualified bidders based on price and other factors, and will enter into contracts for the provision of needed technologies. If the new technology is part of an existing project, NASA may request that the technology be developed directly by the prime contractor, without any further bidding process. The prime contractor may perform the work itself or use subcontractors.

For industry-led research that is not part of a bid and contract, NASA may use cooperative agreements with industry, institutions, or non-governmental entities. For instance, NASA has established a Space Product Development Programme to encourage industry-driven, commercial space research.115 NASA-designated Research Partnership Centers or Commercial Space Centers, located at academic institutions, are funded by NASA and charged with developing industry partners to pursue specific areas of commercial research.116 The research is directed and executed primarily by industry partners, and the industry partners provide a significant amount of the funding for operations and research.117 The companies must fund the research, analyse the data, and bring the results to the marketplace.118

2.57

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Beyond specific contracts or industry programmes for technology development, NASA also recognizes the overlap in technology interests and objectives with other non-industry organisations, and NASA tries to make the greatest use of its resources by collaborating with academia, research facilities, or other institutions.119 This is true across all NASA Enterprises, each of which may independently establish networking relationships with organisations specialising in a particular discipline.

NASA has conceived several types of partner relationships to promote both disciplinary and interdisciplinary research. Some relationships are formed through NASA’s grant process. In this process, NASA will issue Research Announcements, with its request for technological design, basic research, or instrument development. Interested institutions write grant proposals in response to the announcement; sometimes NASA receives unsolicited grant proposals as well. If granted, NASA will fund the proposal out of the budget for the Enterprise into which the proposal best fits. The grant may be funded for multiple years, but always subject to Congressional appropriation. Outreach programmes, with such activities as educational workshops, are also a key part of relationship- building between the agency and its collaborators.120

As an example of these collaborative relationships, NASA promotes academic research and may enter into arrangements with laboratory facilities at universities. For instance, the Glenn Research Center Biomedical Engineering Consortium represents an unique relationship among the Johnson Space Center, Glenn Research Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, University Hospitals of Cleveland, and the National Center for Microgravity Research.121 This consortium functions within the NASA Office of Biological and Physical Research and works to develop techniques and equipment to address crew safety, health and performance.122

In Earth observation, NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise developed the Instrument Incubator Programme to target emerging technologies and to facilitate the development of smaller and less resource-intensive flight instruments.123 Periodic NASA Research Announcements solicit a wide range of development activities.124 The advanced information systems technologies are supported by a prototyping system, where a specific need for complementary technology is defined, and gap-filling ideas are solicited from the scientific community.125

Another successful collaborative effort exists with the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), a non-profit scientific consortium of twelve academic institutions, working in concert with NASA, toward the common goal of solving high-priority biomedical problems with both space and Earth-directed applications.126 NSBRI engages academic, industrial, and government researchers and educators from more than seventy American universities and organisations, and uses the resources of leading biomedical research institutions.127 The NSBRI has many demonstrated achievements,128 and operates with leadership support from the aerospace, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and information technology industries.129

In 2004, NASA will introduce the Enterprise Engine to create innovative partnerships with non- aerospace individual firms and venture capitalists.130 The Enterprise Engine could logically be expected to have “spin-off” and “spin-in” effects, making non-aerospace technologies a foundation for the research and development of space technologies.

As shown here, collaborative relationships may be formed by each NASA Enterprise or field centre, using a variety of programmes and funding sources. Subject to funding availability, the programmes can take many forms designed to meet the technology and innovation needs of the supporting agency group.

2.58 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

2.5.9 International Cooperation

NASA has joined forces with other countries’ space agencies on numerous space missions. NASA shows a continued willingness to cooperate in these activities, despite the rigid legal requirements that it, and its contractors or collaborators, often must satisfy. The principle barriers to cooperation will vary in degree based on the projects and participating countries. The International Space Station project among the United States, the European Space Agency, Russia, and Japan is an obvious example of successful and sustained international cooperation. As indicated below, the possible involvement of China with the International Space Station will create difficult political, policy, and legal hurdles that will transcend agency authority. It remains to be seen whether these non-technical obstacles to full cooperation can be overcome.

Recent agreements signal a continued willingness by NASA to participate in international projects. On June 18, 2003, CNES and NASA signed a Memorandum Of Understanding for the Calipso (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infra-Red Pathfinder Satellite Observations) mission included in our report.131 Then, in July 2003, ESA and NASA announced their agreement to pursue joint solicitations for the next series of environmental satellites.132 Through joint solicitations, NASA and ESA hope to eliminate duplication in satellite investment, to stretch their space budgets, and to fill gaps in spacecraft monitoring of Earth.133 One potential difficulty that may arise from this joint solicitation is the budgeting process for ESA and NASA. NASA’s budget depends on annual Congressional appropriation, whereas ESA uses a five-year plan, with a three-year review. Synchronising and stabilising the funding for joint projects under these constraints will be a challenge.

On a smaller scale, three joint missions involving the United States, Japan, and Europe (Geotail, Yohkoh, and the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics) proved to be ideal testbeds for cooperation. Following the development of these missions, a 1999 trilateral workshop examined the nature of the collaboration, weighed the benefits and costs of cooperation, and identified hurdles for future joint missions.134 The joint mission had been proposed because of budget constraints and overlapping capabilities and mission objectives.135 At the end of the mission development, the workshop participants presented their views of the cooperative effort and the “lessons learned.”136 These lessons included five general categories: personal issues, legal/political/institutional issues, organisational patterns, scientific interests and technical issues, and other issues.137

The personal issues included language barriers and limited staffing among agencies; individual relationship-building was found to be essential to overcoming these barriers.138 Organisational patterns also differed among countries. In particular, each country had its own policies or procedures for handling data rights and data access, making it important to negotiate agreements regarding these issues early in the process.139 NASA missions are also heavily document-driven, with most documents following a predefined format for management organisation, structures, reporting tools, responsibilities, interfaces and so forth.140 The Japanese members of the mission in particular professed confusion over the American insistence on executing so many documents.141

Legal/political/institutional issues created significant barriers to cooperation. In the United States, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU’s) are required for all cooperative projects, with multi-agency approvals.142 When the MOU of the Geotail programme was negotiated, NASA took the position that liability cross-waivers must be executed.143 Japanese domestic law, however, did not permit unconditional waivers of liability because such waivers contradict established social norms.144 What might have proved to be a deadlock in negotiations was resolved politically by then United State Vice President Quayle’s visit to Japan, and the governments’ ceremonial signing of the Geotail MOU, without resolution of the waiver issue.145 After that time, the United States and Japan entered into a general agreement for cross-waiver of liability that provides a framework for multiple missions.146 This avoids the necessity of re-negotiating this difficult issue each time a new cooperative project is begun.

2.59

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Export control problems on the Geotail project were minimal, though the United States procedures had to be followed and the necessary support documents prepared. Nevertheless, at least one workshop reporter noted: “Current export control laws and procedures in the United States and at NASA would make a repeat of the Geotail successful collaboration an impossibility…. It is unfortunate that the highly legalistic approach by the United States to liability and export matters created what seemed insurmountable issues at times.”147

Despite some of these legal, organisational, and personal hurdles, NASA has continued to participate in joint missions with the European Space Agency, Japan, and Russia since this workshop. One example is the Solar-B mission, a follow-on mission to the Yohkoh mission discussed above, which is designed to analyse stellar magnetic fields and the magnetic dynamics of the plasma universe.148 The United States and the United Kingdom are supplying two of the instruments for this ISAS mission, and the payload will be launched on a Japanese M-V rocket from Japan in 2005.149

The Cassini-Huuygens Saturn mission, launched in 1997, is another example of successful cooperation between NASA and an international partner, the European Space Agency.150 Other cooperative efforts of note include: Astro-E2 Mission (observatory for measuring high energy phenomena, with a core instrument supplied by NASA and other experiment instruments supplied by Japan’s ISAS);151 TOPEX-POSEIDON and Jason-1 (satellite to map ocean surface topography in collaboration with CNES and NASA);152 and SAGE III/Meteor 3M satellite mission (satellite for measuring atmospheric temperature, humidity, and other parameters, with a launch from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, Russia, command and control handled by NASA, and data sharing between Russian and United States facilities).153

NASA's Biological and Physical Research Enterprise currently participates in two international strategic working groups, the International Microgravity Strategic Planning Group (IMSPG) and the International Space Life Sciences Working Group (ISLSWG).154 For example, the ISLSWG is composed of the United States, Germany, Canada, France, the Ukraine, and Japan.155 Its goals are to identify the mutual interests and programmatic compatibilities of the various agencies; enhance communication and unity among and between the participating space life sciences communities around the world; and enable a more complete coordination of the international development and utilisation of space flight and special ground research facilities. The IMSPG coordinates the development and use of research apparatus among microgravity research programmes to maximize the productivity of microgravity research internationally.156

The United States has shown a preference for bilateral agreements with international partners.157 Rather than enter into multilateral agreements with all partners to the cooperative project, it will choose to enter into separate agreements with each partner.

Partner

Partner NASA

Partner Bi-Lateral Agreement Structure Figure 2.4: Preferred Mission Agreement Structure

2.60 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

The ISS agreements are good examples. Although the United States entered into an overall ISS agreement, it also chose to have separate Memoranda of Agreement with each ISS partner.158 As noted by the Geotail workshop participants, this MOU process caused delays and negotiating difficulties, and the participants questioned whether this process could deter foreign countries from starting new projects with the United States.159

Unlike these cooperative efforts, the United States has been significantly less willing to cooperate with China, due to the United States’ perception that China freely permits technology transfers to countries on export control restrictions. Policy makers perceive that tensions with China will not be relaxed without a high-level political decision to do so. John Logsdon, Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., explains: "High-technology relationships with the People's Republic [of China] is very much a White House issue. There is no way that NASA can agree to even talk to China about cooperation in human spaceflight without a White House go-ahead. That signal will only come if the Bush Administration decides that such cooperation fits within the broader pattern of U.S.-Chinese political and security relationships."160 The United States, through NASA, has repeatedly stated that it will participate with China on missions, including the International Space Station, only if China agrees to adhere to the MTCR or other non- proliferation regimes.161 In 1994, China reiterated its intention to adhere voluntarily to the MTCR controls, but it has not formally joined the MTCR.162 Whether this formal step of joining the MTCR will make a practical difference in the non-proliferation of technologies, its absence continues to be viewed by the United States government as a stumbling block to technology sharing.

On a small scale, however, the two countries have participated in some space projects that do not require the exchange of technologies, such as climate research with the National Climate Center in Beijing, People's Republic of China, and the Laboratory for Atmospheres, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Maryland, United States.163 Similarly, NOAA’s space-based cooperation with the China relates to climate observations and data sharing. The project falls under two protocols of the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement: the Protocol for Cooperation in Atmospheric Sciences and the Marine and Fishery Science and Technology Protocol.164 In the area of satellite meteorology, NOAA’s main partner is China’s National Meteorological Satellite Center.165 The two sides currently focus on visiting lectures and training in connection with atmospheric applications and determination of data characteristics of each other’s geostationary and polar weather satellites.166 NOAA has also started working with the National Remote Sensing Center of China and the State Oceanic Administration on developing potential interactions in ocean remote sensing.167

China also has participated in the Landsat programme now operated by NOAA. The China Remote Sensing Satellite Ground Station receives, processes, archives, and distributes Earth resources data from various remote sensing satellites, including Landsat.168 The footprints of the station can cover 80-95% of China, and the station is the main civilian source of information of resources remote sensing satellites.169 These smaller projects have proven that successful cooperation is possible under certain circumstances.

References

1 http://www.osp.noaa.gov/mission.htm, August 18, 2003. 2 http://www.osp.noaa.gov/pdfs/NOAAStrategicHIRES.pdf, August 18, 2003. 3 http://www.osp.noaa.gov/pdfs/NOAAStrategicHIRES.pdf, August 18, 2003. 4 http://ldcm.usgs.gov, August 18, 2003. 5 http://landsat7.usgs.gov/programdesc.html, August 18, 2003. 6 http://landsat7.usgs.gov/programdesc.html, August 18, 2003. 7 http://www.nima.mil/cda/article/0,2311,3104_10569_756219,00.html, August 29, 2003. 8 http://www.darpa.mil/, August 28, 2003. 9 NASA’s placement in the federal government based on organisational chart shown at http://www.asu.edu/lib/hayden/govdocs/training/gvmt-org.pdf, August 15, 2003.

2.61

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

10 Reference the 2003 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Strategic Plan, August 15, 2003. 11 Reference the 2003 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Strategic Plan, August 15, 2003. 12 NASA organisation chart based on http://www.hq.nasa.gov/hq/orgchart.htm, August 15, 2003. 13 NASA, Strategy Plan 2000, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/plans/pl2000.pdf, August 9, 2003. 14 NASA, Strategy Plan 2000, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/plans/pl2000.pdf, August 9, 2003. 15 NASA, Vision 2002, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/plans/Vision02.pdf., August 9, 2003. 16 NASA, 2003 Strategy Plan, http:// www.hq.nasa.gov/ osf/heds/ HEDS_PDF/ 2003_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf., August 10, 2003. 17 NASA, 2003 Strategy Plan, pp. 12-29, http:// www.hq.nasa.gov/ osf/heds/ HEDS_PDF/ 2003_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf., August 10, 2003. 18 Space Science Advisory Committee, 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy, http://spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/pubs/strategy/2003/SpaceScienceStrategyV4a.pdf., August 11, 2003. 19 NASA, 2003 Strategy Plan, p. 7, http:// www.hq.nasa.gov/ osf/heds/ HEDS_PDF/ 2003_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf., August 10, 2003. 20 NASA, 2003 Strategy Plan, p. 7, http:// www.hq.nasa.gov/ osf/heds/ HEDS_PDF/ 2003_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf., August 10, 2003. 21 See infra at p. 2.5.5. 22 Commercial Space Policy Making Processes and Institutions in the United States, PowerPoint Presentation used by Andrew Aldrin, International Space University SSP03, Policy and Law Department Lecture, August 2003. 23 42 U.S.C.A. section 2451, et seq., West Publishing, 1994 & Supp. 2003. 24 42 U.S.C.A. section 2451, West Publishing, 1994 & Supp. 2003. 25 42 U.S.C.A. section 2451, West Publishing, 1994 & Supp. 2003. 26 42 U.S.C. A. section 2465(d), West Publishing, 1994 & Supp. 2003. 27 49 U.S.C.A. section 70101, et seq., West Publishing, 1997 & Supp. 2003. 28 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (“Outer Space Treaty”), 1967; Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (“Liability Convention), 1972, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html, August 20, 2003. 29 49 U.S.C.A. section 70101, et seq., West Publishing, 1997 & Supp. 2003. 30 49 U.S.C.A. section 70104, et seq., West Publishing, 1997 & Supp. 2003; 14 C.F.R. part 400, Government Printing Office, 2003. 31 49 U.S.C.A. section 70105, et seq., West Publishing, 1997 & Supp. 2003; 14 C.F.R. part 400, Government Printing Office, 2003. 32 Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, August 2003, http://www.caib.us/news/report/default.html, September 1, 2003. 33 15 U.S.C.A. 4201 et seq.., West Publishing, 1984. 34 15 U.S.C.A. 5601 et seq. , West Publishing, 1998 and Supp. 2003. 35 15 U.S.C.A. 5601 et seq., West Publishing, 1998 and Supp. 2003. 36 15 U.S.C.A. 5621 et seq., West Publishing, 1998 and Supp. 2003. 37 15 C.F.R. section 960, Government Printing Office, 2000. 38 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy, Fact Sheet, p. 2, April 25, 2003, http://www.licensing.noaa.gov/US_CRS_Fact_Sheet.pdf, August 15, 2003. 39 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy, Fact Sheet, p. 2, April 25, 2003, http://www.licensing.noaa.gov/US_CRS_Fact_Sheet.pdf, August 15, 2003. 40 47 U.S.C.A. section 721 et seq., West Publishing, 2001 and Supp. 2003. 41 47 C.F.R. section 25.101 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2002. 42 35 U.S.C.A. section 105, West Publishing, 2001 and Supp. 2003. 43 35 U.S.C.A. section 105, West Publishing, 2001 and Supp. 2003. 44 Commercial Space Policy Making Processes and Institutions in the United States, PowerPoint Presentation used by Andrew Aldrin, International Space University SSP03, Policy and Law Department Lecture, August 2003. 45 22 C.F.R. sections 120 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2003. 46 22 U.S.C.A. section 2778, West Publishing, 1990 & Supp. 2003; 22 C.F.R. section 120 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2003. 47 22 C.F.R. section 120 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2003. 48 22 U.S.C.A. section 2780(j), (k), West Publishing, 1990 & Supp. 2003. 49 Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. sections 730 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2003. 50 15 C.F.R. section 764.3, Government Printing Office, 2003.

2.62 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

51 http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2000-05-002.shtml, September 1, 2003. 52 http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2000-05-002.shtml, September 1, 2003. 53 Futron Corporation: Satellite Industry Statistics, 2002, sponsored by Satellite Industry Association, http://www.sia.org/industry_overview/2002%20Satellite%20Industry%20Statistics.pdf, September 1, 2003. 54 Futron Corporation: Satellite Industry Statistics, 2002, sponsored by Satellite Industry Association, http://www.sia.org/industry_overview/2002%20Satellite%20Industry%20Statistics.pdf, September 1, 2003. 55 Futron Corporation: Satellite Industry Statistics, 2002, sponsored by Satellite Industry Association, http://www.sia.org/industry_overview/2002%20Satellite%20Industry%20Statistics.pdf, September 1, 2003. 56 Futron Corporation: Satellite Industry Statistics, 2002, sponsored by Satellite Industry Association, http://www.sia.org/industry_overview/2002%20Satellite%20Industry%20Statistics.pdf, September 1, 2003. 57 Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry: Final Report, p. 6-8, November 2002: http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/index.shtml, September 1, 2003. 58 Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry: Final Report, p. 6-10, November 2002: http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/index.shtml, September 1, 2003. 59 Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry: Final Report, p. 6-10, November 2002: http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/index.shtml, September 1, 2003. 60 Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry: Final Report, p. 6-9, November 2002: http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/index.shtml, September 1, 2003. 61 Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry: Final Report, p. 6-11, November 2002: http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/index.shtml, September 1, 2003. 62The Appropriations Process: http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~wharris/frs/bigpic.htm, August 18, 2003. 63 NASA 2000 Budget Timeline, http://www.aiaa.org/sections/cl/what/00budget.pdf, August 18, 2003. 64 NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer: Budget and Performance Plan Formulation, February 8, 2002. 65 NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer: Budget and Performance Plan Formulation, February 8, 2002. 66 NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer: Budget and Performance Plan Formulation, February 8, 2002. 67 FY2004 Budget Summary table: http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2004/ August 20, 2003 68 http://www.aiaa.org/sections/cl/what/00budget.pdf, August 18, 2003. 69 http://www.aiaa.org/sections/cl/what/00budget.pdf, August 18, 2003. 70 The Appropriations Process: http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~wharris/frs/bigpic.htm, August 18, 2003. 71 The Appropriations Process: http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~wharris/frs/bigpic.htm, August 18, 2003. 72 The Appropriations Process: http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~wharris/frs/bigpic.htm, August 18, 2003. 73 The Appropriations Process: http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~wharris/frs/bigpic.htm, August 18, 2003. 74 The Appropriations Process: http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~wharris/frs/bigpic.htm, August 18, 2003. 75 The Appropriations Process: http://www.sal.wisc.edu/~wharris/frs/bigpic.htm, August 18, 2003. 76 Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill 2004, pp. 130-40, HR 108-235, 108th Congress, 1st Session, July 24, 2003. 77 http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nasa04h.pdf, August 18, 2003. 78 http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nasa04h.pdf, August 18, 2003. 79 Wheeler, L: White House Turns Down Shuttle Budget Boost Request, Florida Today, August 23, 2003, http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/nasa_budget_030823.html, August 27, 2003. 80 Putting NASA's Budget in Perspective, http://www.richardb.us/nasa.html, August 18, 2003. 81 http://www.aerospace.nasa.gov/goals/pci.htm, August 15, 2003. 82 http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/program/programme.html, August 18, 2003. 83 http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/eo3/index.html, August 18, 2003. 84 http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/st5/technology/index.html, August 18, 2003. 85 http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/st6/TECHNOLOGY/index.html, August 18, 2003. 86 http://ssl.mit.edu/spheres/index.htm, August 29, 2003; http://ssl.mit.edu/spheres/motivation.html, August 29, 2003. 87 http://ssl.mit.edu/spheres/index.htm, August 29, 2003; http://ssl.mit.edu/spheres/motivation.html, August 29, 2003. 88 http://ssl.mit.edu/spheres/index.htm, August 29, 2003; http://ssl.mit.edu/spheres/motivation.html, August 29, 2003. 89 http://www.niac.usra.edu/, August 18, 2003. 90 http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/call/CP_02-02/, August 21, 2003. 91 http://www.niac.usra.edu/, August 18, 2003. 92 http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/ftp_faq.html#1, August 15, 2003. 93 http://nctn.hq.nasa.gov/innovation/Innovation52/wel2i52.htm, August 15, 2003. 94 http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/proposer.html, August 21, 2003. 95 http://www.aerospace.nasa.gov/themes/ittp.htm, August 15, 2003.

2.63

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

96 http://www.aerospace.nasa.gov/themes/goal10_ittp.htm, August 15, 2003. 97 http://technology.ssc.nasa.gov/NeedsOpps.htm, August 15, 2003. 98 http://technology.ssc.nasa.gov/act_dualuse.html, August 15, 2003. 99 http://technology.ssc.nasa.gov/act_dualuse.html, August 15, 2003. 100 National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 2003 Strategy Plan, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/heds/HEDS_PDF/2003_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf, August 13, 2003. 101 National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 2003 NASA SBIR/STTR Programme Solicitations, http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbirsttr2003/solicitation/sbirsttr2003.pdf, August 13, 2003. 102 http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/ospfacts.html, August 25, 2003. 103 http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/ospfacts.html, August 25, 2003. 104 NASA: NASA’s Space Launch Initiative: The Next Generation Launch Technology Program, p. 2, http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/ngltfacts.pdf, August 26, 2003. 105 NASA: NASA’s Space Launch Initiative: The Next Generation Launch Technology Program, p. 2, http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/ngltfacts.pdf, August 26, 2003. 106 NASA: NASA’s Space Launch Initiative: The Next Generation Launch Technology Program, p. 2, http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/ngltfacts.pdf, August 26, 2003. 107 Biological systems office: Home, http://slsd.jsc.nasa.gov/bso/index.htm, August 13, 2003. 108 NASA Johnson Space Center: Distributed Crew Interaction with Advanced Life Support Control Systems, http://is.arc.nasa.gov/HCC/projects/LifeSup.html , August 13, 2003. 109 JPL Robotics: Robotic Vehicles Group, http://robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/groups/rv/, August 13, 2003. 110 National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 2003 Strategy Plan, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/heds/HEDS_PDF/2003_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf, August 13, 2003. 111 Joshua Moss : New 'Asimov' Robot Novel Lacks Substance, http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/books/mirage_book_000428.html, August 13, 2003. 112 Spacedaily: NASA Contracts For $6 Million Nuclear Electric Propulsion Study, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03m.html, August 13, 2003. 113 NASA Space Science, Project Prometheus, http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/prometheus.htm, September 1, 2003. 114 Jet Propulsion Laboratory: NASA Upgrades Deep Space Network for 2003 Crunch, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/dsn_upgrade_010515.html, August 13, 2003. 115 http://spd.nasa.gov/sourcebook/, August 15, 2003. 116 http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/themes.html, August 12, 2003. 117 http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/spd.html, August 15, 2003. 118 http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/spd.html, August 15, 2003. 119 http://fundamentalbiology.arc.nasa.gov/techno/Techcollab.html, August 12, 2003. 120 http://fundamentalbiology.arc.nasa.gov/techno/Techapp.html, August 12, 2003; http://www.ncmr.org/industry/, August 12, 2003. 121 http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/grcbio/bec.html, August 12, 2003. 122 http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/grcbio/bec.html, August 16, 2003. 123 http://esto.nasa.gov:8080/obs_technologies.html, August 15, 2003. 124 http://esto.nasa.gov:8080/obs_technologies.html, August 15, 2003. 125 http://esto.nasa.gov:8080/info_technologies.html, August 15, 2003. 126 http://www.nsbri.org, August 12, 2003. 127 http://www.nsbri.org, August 12, 2003. 128 http://www.nsbri.org, August 12, 2003. 129 http://www.nsbri.org, August 12, 2003. 130 http://nctn.hq.nasa.gov/innovation/1-welcome.html, August 15, 2003. 131 http://www.spaceref.co.jp/news/4Thur/2003_06_26psci.htm, August 22, 2003. 132 Selding, P.: US, Europe Move to End Duplication in Earth Observation, Space News International, Vol. 14, No. 30, p. 3, July 28, 2003. 133 Selding, P.: US, Europe Move to End Duplication in Earth Observation, Space News International, Vol. 14, No. 30, p. 3, July 28, 2003. 134 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p.1, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 135 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, pp. 23-24, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 136 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999.

2.64 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

137 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p. 2, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 138 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p. 2, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 139 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, pp. 4, 48-49, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 140 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p. 29, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 141 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, pp. 29, 31, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 142 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p. 3, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 143 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p. 27, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 144 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p. 27, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 145 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p. 27, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 146 Agreement between the United States and Japan Concerning Cross-Waiver of Liability for Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Space Peaceful Purpose, with Annex and Exchange of Notes, July 20, 1995, http://www.nasda.go.jp/lib/space-law/chapter_4/4-2-2-12_e.html, August 20, 2003. 147 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, pp. 30, 32, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 148 Solar-B, http://stp.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/solar-b/solar-b.htm, August 12, 2003. 149 Solar-B, http://stp.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/solar-b/solar-b.htm, August 12, 2003. 150 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/current/cassini.html, August 12, 2003. 151 http://astroe.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/astroe/astroegof.html, August 13, 2003; ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/2001/01-147.txt, August 13, 2003. 152 http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/topex.html, August 20, 2003. 153 http://www-sage3.larc.nasa.gov/meteor-3m/, August 13, 2003. 154 http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/international.html, August 14, 2003. 155 http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/islswg.html, August 14, 2003. 156 http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/international.html, August 14, 2003. 157 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003 158 http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/reference/partners/special/iss_aggrements, August 20, 2003. 159 Space Studies Board National Research Council: U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation, p. 3, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 1999. 160 David, L., Space Cooperation: The China Factor, http://www.space.com/news/china_cooperation_030121.html, August 13, 2003. 161 Smith, C., NASA Eyes China as New Space Partner: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/5/15446.shtml 162 Joint United States-People's Republic Of China Statement On Missile Proliferation. October 4, 1994, http://www.nti.org/db/china/engdocs/mtcrusch.htm, August 22, 2003. 163 http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/lib/Lab1998/lab1999section2.html, August 13, 2003. 164 http://www.nesdisia.noaa.gov/ForeignAgency.html, August 13, 2003. 165 http://www.nesdisia.noaa.gov/ForeignAgency.html, August 13, 2003. 166 http://www.nesdisia.noaa.gov/ForeignAgency.html, August 13, 2003. 167 http://www.nesdisia.noaa.gov/ForeignAgency.html, August 13, 2003. 168 http://landsat7.usgs.gov/grounds/china.html, August 20, 2003. 169 http://landsat7.usgs.gov/grounds/china.html, August 20, 2003.

2.65

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

2.6 Comparison of Surveyed Countries

Based on the surveys for the four countries, we can discern trends and distinctions among the countries in their budgets, innovation processes, and key missions and related technologies. When we broaden our analysis of potentials for cooperation to include ESA, our comparison also reveals the most likely combinations for international collaboration.

2.6.1 Budgets

Funding of space activities in every country is a direct responsibility of the government and its internal policy. The formulation of the budget depends on the state of the economy and the national priorities. The budgeted amounts shown below are not always dedicated to particular missions or technologies, and the reader is referred to the individual country surveys for a discussion of the limitations on the budget information.

Country Entire Civilian Budget (million US$) China 200 Japan 1,500 Russia 300 USA 14,500 (NASA)

Table 2.7: Estimated Entire Civil Space Budget for 2002.1

As show in Table 2.7, NASA has the largest budget for space activities. Japan confirms its commitment to space activities, dedicating US$1,500,000,000. Russia, due to its difficult current economy, dedicates only US$300,000,000. China’s expenditure for its space programme is estimated to be US$200,000,000.

The success of the Chinese space programme with a reduced budget, compared to the budget of other space-faring nations, is worth mentioning. However, it has to be taken into account that the standard of living and production cost vary substantially with respect to the levels in Western countries. Russia also has made tremendous advancements on a limited budget.

2.6.2 Innovation Processes

The four surveyed countries promote innovation, both within their agencies and through collaboration with industry or academia. There appears to be a general recognition of the difficulty of inventing new technology from within the agency, due to limitations on human resources and design and testing facilities. Using outside institutions and industry to design, develop, and test new technologies allows a cross-pollenisation of ideas from traditional space science and engineering disciplines and from non- space disciplines such as pharmacology, agriculture, and materials testing of terrestrial products.

The countries’ innovation programmes have advanced to varying levels, and they function with differing degrees of governmental oversight. China and Russia exercise the greatest degree of governmental control over space R&D, with many of the research facilities falling within the direct control of the space agencies. The United States is on the other end of the spectrum, allowing industry and academia to proceed independently. With further study, it may be possible to gauge the relative benefits of governmental controls and the impact on innovation. The work of TRACKS to Space has not progressed to the point where such conclusions can be drawn.

2.66 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

The space agencies have determined methods to create incentives for industry and academia to participate in the innovation process. Japan and the United States both encourage small to mid-sized businesses to develop technologies, by providing grants or other design and development incentives.

Technology transfer and the grant of intellectual property rights have been shown to be an effective innovation incentive. In particular, Japan and the United States permit patents for space technologies developed by private entities or individuals. All of the surveyed countries encourage “spin-offs,” -- that is, the transfer of space-related technology to non-space segments for use in new and beneficial ways.

In our survey, we identified numerous programmes by the space agencies, but there was no coherent or centralized focus for such programmes. An inventor would need to wind his way through many bureaucracies to identify the best means of presenting his R&D concepts. This is particularly true with NASA, which has numerous programmes within its various Enterprises, but apparently no single source for identifying all available opportunities. Although allowing each Enterprise to identify its unique needs is valuable, the current structure is confusing. ESA has created similar tools to foster technology transfers and innovation. The country surveys may offer concepts for innovation, but ESA would be well-advised to keep such programmes centralised and obvious to users outside of ESA.

2.6.3 Key Missions and Related Technologies

The surveyed countries focus their resources on a handful of mission types, many of which overlap among the countries. All of the countries have emphasized R&D to support remote sensing for climate/meteorological support; vegetative changes; and disaster monitoring and mitigation. The countries have invested in technologies such as improved spectrometers, interferometers, and telescopes for space science missions to investigate solar magnetospheric properties and solar events, like gamma ray bursts and coronal mass ejections. Other missions entail observation or sampling of celestial bodies for information about the origin of the universe.

The drive to know more about our universe has led to the development of technologies to support solar system exploration, including robotics for sample analysis and return. Table 2.8 below refers to the number of missions reported on the Mission Tables by various fields.

China Japan Russia United States Communications (telecomm/direct 1 2 1 broadcasting satellites) Remote Sensing 10 2 3 10 (optical, radar, hyper spectral) Reusable Launch Vehicles 4 1 (see section 2.4.7) Expendable Launch Vehicles 2 3 2 (see section 2.4.7) Planetary Exploration 1 4 1 7 Human Spaceflight 1 1 1 1 Space Science 3 7 5 7 Global Navigation 1

Table 2.8: Indication of Significant Country Activities (by service area and number of planned missions from survey)

Table 2.8 above does not provide a complete picture of the mission emphases of the countries. For example, the total number of Japanese missions for space science is high, but each mission is small in scope and overall cost. Remote sensing, fundamental satellite technology, and expendable launch capabilities missions are fewer in number, but have a much higher priority for Japan.

2.67

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

As another limitation of Table 2.8, the United States column does not identify R&D occurring outside of NASA, making it appear that the United States has no investment related to telecommunications or direct broadcasting. Although NASA has no planned missions related to these areas, the private industry is responsible for the development of technologies to advance their commercial ventures.

NASA also does not have a separate mission for global navigation systems, but the United States Department of Defense is overseeing augmentation plans that will include new technological advances for GPS. Likewise, China has its own positioning system Beidou, which is not included in the Table 2.6. The technologies were not mapped in our survey because the third Beidou satellite was already launched earlier this year.

Despite the apparent similarity in missions, the countries do take different approaches to technological development. For example, future missions for solar system exploration includes a wide range of destinations:

China Japan Russia United States Moon √ √ Mars √ √ √ √ Mercury √ √ Asteroid √ √ Comet √ Pluto/Charon √ Table 2.9: Solar System Exploration: Future Mission Destinations

These differences in mission destinations necessitate very different technological developments. For example, in the area of propulsion, China and Russia are both concentrating their efforts on developing liquid and solid propellants that are less toxic, while still providing high performance and lower costs. Japan is trying to develop liquid natural gas propellants. The United States is considering ion propulsion and nuclear propulsion, though the latter is still in the study stage.

In our country survey, the technologies were allocated to technology domains, sub-domains, and groups established by ESA. Looking across the four surveyed countries, we see the following emphasis on key technologies or innovations:

2.68 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Technology Domain China Japan Russia USA 1 On-board data systems 9 2 Space systems software 3 3 Spacecraft power 3 2 1 4 Spacecraft environment & effects 5 Space system control 1 3 2 6 RF payload systems 2 1 1 3 7 Electromagnetics technology 8 System design & verification 1 9 Mission control & operations 1 10 Flight dynamics & precise navigation 2 9 11 Mission analysis & space debris 12 Ground station system & networking 13 Automation, telepresence & robotics 1 4 14 Life & physical sciences instrumentation 2 10 6 53 15 Mechanisms & tribology 2 6 2 7 16 Optics & opto-electronics 5 10 4 47 17 Aerothermodynamics 2 18 Propulsion 2 1 6 2 19 Structures & pyrotechnics 1 1 20 Thermal 1 3 21 ECLS & in-situ resource utilisation 1 1 22 Components 1 2 23 Materials and processes 24 Quality, dependability & safety 25 User segment 26 Application specific technologies Table 2.10: Technology Domains for Each Country

Given the number of Earth observation and space sciences missions for Japan and the United States, as shown on Table 2.8, it is not surprising that the key or innovative technologies fall heavily into the categories of “life and physical sciences instrumentation” and “optics & opto-electronics.” China also had a larger number of remote sensing missions, but Table 2.10 above does not show the same predominance of sensing instrumentation and electronics. Finally, it is worth noting Russia’s heavy interest in propulsion, spacecraft control, and power systems technologies, consistent with its continued development of launch vehicle technologies.

Each of our surveyed countries had a mission including human space flight, but the advancements associated with these mission involved different service areas and, ultimately, different technologies:

China Japan Russia United States Escape system, Kibo module, Medical support, Mission simulation, spacewalks, health care countermeasures, life science rendezvous, techniques, biological testing monitoring systems, docking centrifuge, centrifuge radiation mitigation, microgravity countermeasures

Table 2.11: Human Space Flight Service Areas

2.69

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Although the research shown on the Mission Tables and Technology Tables presents only a limited snapshot of the technology areas of our surveyed countries, there are obvious areas of overlap, particularly in the space sciences and remote sensing fields. Due to the global importance of these missions, cooperation potentials are strongest in this area. Human space flight also presents opportunities for collaboration from a technical perspective. Each of the R&D areas are important to the success of human spaceflight, and gaps between the countries could be eliminated with cooperation.

In contrast, collaboration on launch technologies is more difficult due to the different time frames for development, the unique launch capabilities sought by each country, and the varying technology thrusts.

2.6.4 International Cooperation

Successful joint space ventures in recent years have demonstrated an existing cooperation potential between the major space-faring nations. As demonstrated in the country technical notes, there is an ever-increasing interest in cooperation to mitigate high costs and risk. Most important, technology harmonisation allows the space players to complete and fill the gaps of one another, across a wide range of disciplines, rather than duplicating efforts. It is safe to conclude that all space nations are interested in cooperation.

On the other hand, for each pair of countries, political issues determine the willingness to cooperate much more decisively than any technical problems or needs of the countries’ space programmes. For example:

Russia and the US: There have been concerns from the US side about Russian mismanagement of NASA funds devoted to joint projects, especially those that had been directed to the Russian Space programme.2 There was also concern of Russia not being able to fulfil its obligations in the framework of ISS or other common undertakings due to the depressed economic condition.3 In practice, however, Russia has (not without problem) remained a main pillar of the ISS project. One other factor of concern by the United States has also been the commercial deals that Russia has made with countries considered adversaries by the United States (such as Iran or North Korea) to supply critical space technologies. These agreements may influence decision-makers in the United States to limit cooperation with Russia. One factor that will also play an important role, however, is the economic benefit for the United States to buy from Russia rather than develop by itself specific technologies, such as propulsion systems and space nuclear power plants.

Russia and ESA: The warming relations between Russia and the EU, including a positive summit in 2003, influence the cooperation potential between the countries. Europe has been quick to respond favourably to some Russian requests (the most notable of them being the decision to allow the launch of the Soyuz rocket from the European spaceport in Kourou with some cost-sharing). Additionally ESA is regularly purchasing seats in Soyuz taxi flights, and there is considerable cooperation in many fields of scientific research and space development.

China and ESA: There have been some common projects, as well as some usage of Chinese space assets by ESA. China has shown interest in participating in future European projects, especially Galileo. However, there has not been a clear answer from ESA at the time of writing, and any such cooperation will be viewed unfavourably by the US for strategic reasons.4

2.70 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

China and the US: There has been cooperation in the scientific field. With the determination of China to develop a manned space programme, there is potential for cooperation including the International Space Station. The main setback for such developments has been the political climate between the two countries with accusations of espionage from both sides and difference in strategic goals. Technology export and proliferation concerns, as well as a number of accidents, have at times brought contracts of United States companies with China to a standstill under the US government’s regulations.

US and Japan: This has been the strongest cooperation case between any two countries. Since the start of its space program, in many sectors, Japan has preferred to get technology from the United States rather than develop its own technical capabilities. This gave Japan the advantage of jump- starting its programme. At the same time, it is characteristic that this initial cooperation did not prevent the country from developing its own independent capability later. The successful US-Japanese relation has evolved further through many common projects to a stable ISS partnership. It has to be noted, however, that the two countries have had no major political differences. Instead the main problems for cooperation appeared to come from different cultures and legal frameworks (for more, refer to the survey on Japan, section 2.3).

The initiation and success of a cooperative project depends on the political situation between the countries, and certain law and cultural obstacles will have to be overcome. Even under the worst circumstances, however, small-scale cooperation can succeed.

2.6.5 Technology Survey - Discussing The Survey Data

The mission and technology information gathered by the team does not provide a comprehensive image of all the technologies currently under development in the four surveyed countries. Many factors explain this situation.

Availability of data related to potential applications The availability of information varies significantly depending on the type of services for which the technologies are used. Information on technologies used for scientific missions and related to the development of scientific instruments is broadly available. For the four countries surveyed, the technologies used in life support systems for manned missions, and optics instruments for remote sensing were by far the most accessible. On the other hand, information on potential dual-use technologies or those identified as strategic for the competitiveness of the country’s industry is limited or unavailable.

In some countries, the government is not the main funding source of space technology development The survey was limited to the activities funded by the government. The limited national space budget in some countries encourages corporations to seek funding from external sources and other countries. For example, in Russia, previously state-owned corporations like Energiya or Khrunichev, which do not receive funding directly from Rosaviakosmos, conduct a lot of technology development. All these activities fall outside the scope of this survey.

The main space agencies fund only a portion of the countries’ space activities The survey was limited to the activities conducted by the countries’ main civil space agency. This scope limitation explains the paucity of information obtained in some areas. For the United States, the exclusion of government agencies such as NOAA and the Department of Defense influences greatly the amount of information available in different technology domains. Domains such as ground station systems and networking, structures and materials are undoubtedly part of the technology development plans of these entities but are not reflected in the survey. Also, many space activities like telecommunications and direct broadcasting have long been undertaken by the private sectors along with the development of a portion of the associated technologies.

2.71

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Further development of existing technologies is not always in the strategic plans The absence of information in some technology areas where countries are already effectively active can be explained by government decisions to postpone further investments in that specific area to the benefit of others.

Cultural diversity and policies on access to information The amount of information publicly available on web sites and publications about NASA activities is by far greater than what can be found for the three other countries. This transparency leads to a wealth of information for the reader who can easily be submerged by it. When looking closer, it is also found that the information publicly available only covers top-level aspects and the more detailed data is often corporate and protected. Besides, one has to be careful in analysing the data not to confuse availability with willingness to cooperate and share. The technology transfer restrictions such as ITAR remain present. In contrast for the other countries, even though team members had access to information in their own country and could overcome the language barrier, it is evident that a lot of information is not available in a written format or published.

References

1 See Agency Funding and Budget sections 2.2.5, 2.3.4, 2.4.4, and 2.5.5. 2 J. Oberg, “Star-Crossed Orbits: Inside the U.S.-Russian Space Alliance”, McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Books; ISBN: 0071407960, October 2002. 3 J. Oberg, “Star-Crossed Orbits: Inside the U.S.-Russian Space Alliance”, McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Books; ISBN: 0071407960, October 2002. 4 J. Johnson-Freese, “Galileo form the US Perspective”, presentation at the Summer Session of the International Space University, Strasbourg France, July 2003.

2.72 International Space University, SSP03

3 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION CONTEXT

3.1 Framework for International Cooperation in Space Activities

For the past four decades, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) has played a notable role in advancing multilateral space cooperation. The Committee provides an unique forum for the exchange of information among developed and developing countries on the latest developments in the use and exploration of outer space. The Committee’s main work is performed in its two sub-committees: the Scientific and Technical Sub-committee and the Legal Sub-Committee. The Secretariat of the UN COPUOS is the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (OOSA), situated at the UN Office in Vienna. OOSA prepares and distributes reports, studies, and publications on various fields of space science, technology applications, and international space law. OOSA also implements the United Nations Programme on Space Applications (PSA) and works to improve the use of space science and technology for the economic and social development of all nations, in particular developing countries. Under the programme, the office conducts training courses, workshops, seminars, and other activities on applications and capacity building in subjects such as remote sensing, communications, satellite meteorology, search and rescue, basic space science, and satellite navigation.

The Office has coordinated and provided secretariat services for the three United Nations Conferences on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE), which were held in 1968, 1982 and 1999. The UNISPACE conferences have been milestones in the development of international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space. UNISPACE III adopted the Vienna Declaration and Action Plan, which articulates the UN's vision for the peaceful uses of space in the 21st century. The Declaration and Action Plan lays out a proactive, comprehensive, and worldwide programme for using space applications for human security and welfare; advancing the scientific knowledge of space; protecting the space environment; enhancing education and training opportunities; ensuring public awareness of the importance of space activities; and promoting international cooperation.

Since 2000, COPUOS has concentrated on implementing the resolutions and recommendations of UNISPACE III and the Vienna Declaration through the work of various Action Teams. This has led, inter alia, to the establishment of the International Charter on Disasters which has been activated some 30 times to provide support from the space community for the management of natural disasters. Although not a space conference per se, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in 2002, marked a significant milestone in international dialogue on environmental solutions through the recognition of the role that space plays in these issues. In addition to the major UNISPACE conferences, OOSA organizes regular workshops and conferences to address issues of interest to the space community. These events create a forum for discussion of issues that eventually arise on the agenda on COPUOS.

UN dialogue is useful for providing greater openness and interest in cooperation. However, COPUOS and OOSA do not act as implementing agencies for programmes that arise out of these initiatives. The implementing function is largely taken up by the space agencies and inter-governmental or non- governmental organisations. The world’s space agencies have developed several cooperative forums to address specific issues. Examples of inter-agency forums include the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), a group comprising ten space agencies, which has proposed debris mitigation guidelines and the Inter-Agency Consultative Group for Space Sciences (IACG) to promote coordination among the space science missions of member agencies. The IACG member agencies comprise ESA, ISAS, NASA and Rosaviakosmos. Consideration could be given to the establishment of a similar kind of forum to discuss technology issues of mutual interest to the various space agencies.

3.1

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

The next tier of international cooperation involves inter-governmental or non-governmental entities which receive and process data from space. These entities are mostly applications-oriented. An example of an inter-governmental entity is the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a specialized agency of the UN, which coordinates global activities in weather prediction, air pollution research, climate change related activities, ozone layer depletion studies and tropical storm forecasting. An example of a non-governmental organisation is the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS), whose membership encompasses the world’s government agencies responsible for civil remote sensing satellite programmes. Cooperative entities like CEOS do not normally have a large budget or permanent staff. Work is done on a ‘best efforts’ basis with in-kind contributions by participating agencies. The regular UN COPUOS meetings and OOSA programmes provide a forum for interactions among these various bodies. Such discussions also help to create an environment conducive to cross-cutting initiatives that fall outside of the UN system, such as the Integrated Global Observations Strategy (IGOS) or the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) initiative of the European Commission and ESA.

3.2 Survey of Legal Framework for Space Activities

3.2.1 International Law and the Framework for Cooperation

The four countries of our survey have ratified, and ESA has signed,1 the United Nations space treaties,2 with the exception of the Agreement Governing the Activity of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (“Moon Treaty”).3 The treaties require varying levels of cooperation by member states. For the TRACKS to Space project, we focus on any limitations imposed by the treaties that could create barriers to successful international cooperation.

The 1967 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (“Outer Space Treaty”)4 is the most comprehensive of the treaties in its scope and applicability to the case studies. The Outer Space Treaty mandates that the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind.5 Further, it provides that outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States, without claims of national appropriation.6 These basic precepts create an incentive for international cooperation because no single country may gain an advantage in space exploration nor use that advantage to the detriment of other nations, whether space-faring or not.

In addition, the Outer Space Treaty directly calls on member states to cooperate in space activities on an international level: “There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space … and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.”7 Likewise, the exploration and use of space must be done in a manner that “promot[es] international co-operation and understanding”8 and that is “guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance … with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties.”9 The treaty specifically requires sharing of information about a nation’s exploration efforts and mission results.10 These treaty obligations support the goal of interagency cooperation for our Case Studies.

In light of our Case Study on mission simulation, we look ahead to the treaty’s effect on collaboration among nations in the realiSATION of planetary exploration, including in situ resource utilisation (ISRU). Because Article II of the Outer Space Treaty limits claims of national appropriation, no nation may use lunar or Martian materials as if they existed within sovereign territory. Furthermore, this non-appropriation clause implies that the preservation of the lunar or Martian environment is also not a decision that can be made by any one nation.11

3.2 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Adherence to the Outer Space Treaty will demand that something akin to, but more acceptable than, the Moon Treaty be adopted by the space-faring and non-space-faring nations alike, and will probably involve the establishment of an international organisation to regulate resource utilisation. Formal agreement among nations on the rules of ISRU will be absolutely necessary for such activities to begin. Rather than a hindrance, required cooperation within the international legal framework may initiate a process of technological cooperation and cost-sharing to make the development of these resources a reality.

The subsequent Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention) was adopted in the belief that rules and procedures for allocating liability from damage caused by space objects could “contribute to the strengthening of international co-operation in the field of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes….”12 Drawing on the general provision in the Outer Space Treaty making member states liable for damage,13 the Convention establishes a rule of liability for “launching states,” which, in the case of international projects, may include several member states.14 Launching states may enter into agreements among themselves or other participants to change the allocation of liability, but these agreements do not alter the rights of the injured state to enforce the Convention.15

Because of this liability framework, joint missions will require identification and serious consideration of the legal requirements, especially any contractual requirements, to allocate the potential liability. The parties will need to decide in advance how much liability they are willing to accept and then to structure indemnities or other contractual provisions to allocate the potential liability.

United Nations principles also set the legal framework for international cooperation. For instance, the 1986 Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (“Remote Sensing Principles”) establish the need to use remote sensing for the benefit of the world as a whole: “Remote sensing activities shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic, social or scientific and technological development, and taking into particular consideration the needs of the developing countries.”16 The Remote Sensing Principles then specifically direct that countries carrying out remote sensing activities “shall promote international cooperation in these activities” and “shall make available to other States opportunities for participation therein.”17 Though not described in any detail, such participation shall be based in each case on equitable and mutually acceptable terms.18 The Remote Sensing Principles also require member states to make available technical assistance to other countries and require the United Nations itself to promote international cooperation through this technical assistance.19

Finally, the 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries (“Developing Countries Declaration”) enumerates the many ways in which our surveyed countries should contribute to promoting and fostering international cooperation with developing countries in their space activities.20 Such cooperation should be done on an equitable and mutually acceptable basis, including the creation of contractual terms that are fair, reasonable, and in full compliance with the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.21 The member states must foster international cooperation that promotes the development of space science and technology and of its applications; fosters the development of relevant and appropriate space capabilities in interested States; and facilitates the exchange of expertise and technology among States on a mutually acceptable basis.22 Reaching beyond the member states, the Developing Countries Declaration even recommends that national and international agencies, research institutions, organisations for development aid, and developed and developing countries consider the appropriate use of space applications and the potential of international cooperation for reaching their development goals.23

3.3

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

3.2.2 International Legal Framework of Technology Controls

The four countries in our survey have entered into multi-national agreements to cooperate in the prevention of weapons proliferation. These non-proliferation agreements typically allow sharing of technologies among parties to the agreement, but otherwise restrict the export of technologies that could be used to create weapons of mass destruction. Because space technologies often can be used dually for civilian purposes or as weapons, space technologies are typically controlled under these agreements.

One of the earliest and more prominent of these agreements was the Coordinating Committee for Export Controls (“COCOM”), begun in 1949 during the Cold War. The items controlled by COCOM mainly included high technology industrial machinery, nuclear-related equipment and materials, and weapons of mass destruction.24 COCOM members included the United States and Japan, permitting them to cooperatively exchange information and technologies.25 At a COCOM High Level Meeting in 1993, the members agreed to dissolve the organisation because it was no longer compatible with global economics, but the members agreed to move toward a different structure for non-proliferation controls.26

Eventually in 1996, the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, which has its secretariat in Vienna, supplanted COCOM and now provides an international regime for non-proliferation.27 The arrangement is a global multilateral regime that seeks regional and international security and stability by promoting transparency and responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and sensitive dual-use goods and technologies.28 The restricted goods and technologies are set forth on an extensive list which is continually updated.29 The goal of the Wassenaar Arrangement is to prevent destabilizing build-ups of weapons and technologies in regions of tension and to enforce the Arrangement in states whose behaviour causes concern. However, there is no international enforcement mechanism, and the decision to transfer or deny transfer of any item will be the sole responsibility of each Participating State in accordance with national legislation and policies. Those decisions will be implemented on the basis of national discretion that can vary from country to country.30 Russia, Japan, the United States, and many European nations participate in the Wassenaar Arrangement.31

Another prominent international non-proliferation effort is the Missile Technology Control Regime (“MTCR”), created in 1987. The MTCR describes itself as “an informal and voluntary association of countries which share the goals of non-proliferation of unmanned delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction, and which seek to coordinate national export licensing efforts aimed at preventing their proliferation.”32 The regime's controls are applicable to rocket and unmanned air vehicle systems such as ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles, sounding rockets, unmanned air vehicles, cruise missiles, drones and remotely piloted vehicles.33 The MTCR uses Guidelines to define its purpose, structure, and rules; the Equipment, Software and Technology Annex helps the members to implement export controls on listed technologies.34 As with the Wassenaar Arrangement, individual partners are responsible for implementing the Guidelines and Annex on the basis of sovereign national discretion and in accordance with national legislation and practice.35 Members of the MTCR now include Russian, Japan, the United States, and many European nations.36

Because these regimes are informal arrangements, each country may take disparate views on the extent and nature of the prohibited transactions, and enforcement can be difficult.37

Individual countries translate their international obligations into a national framework for export controls. The national laws dictate how easily the countries in our survey may share information and technologies and the degree of cooperation on international projects. The four countries’ export control laws are summarized below. A more detailed discussion of the countries’ national legal framework for space activities is provided in sections 2.2.4, 2.3.3, 2.4.3, and 2.5.4.

3.4 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

China

China developed export controls for dual-use nuclear goods and military items in the late 1990’s.38 On August 25, 2002, the Chinese Government promulgated and published its Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Export Control of Missiles and Missile-Related Items and Technologies.39 The regulations restrict the export of space technologies that are contained on the Control List, promulgated at the same time.40 Although nominally restricted to missile technology that “can be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction,”41 the Control List includes many dual-use technologies.42 The regulations prohibit the export of technologies on the Control List without a license issued by “the competent foreign economic and trade department of the State Council.”43 The export controls can be enforced by the State Council under the Regulations, through the suspension or revocation of the license, confiscation of illegal income, fines, and criminal liability.44 Although it is not a member of the Wassenaar Arrangement or the MTCR, China publicly supports the consolidation and strengthening of international non-proliferation regimes on the basis of universal participation and non-discrimination.45 Specifically, it agreed in 1991 to abide by the MTCR's original 1987 Guidelines and Parameters.46 China clarified the nature of its adherence to the MTCR in the 1994 Joint United States-People's Republic Of China Statement On Missile Proliferation.47

Japan

Japan implemented export controls decades ago to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the unintended export of dual-use technologies. Under the Japanese Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Control Law, exporters must obtain permission from the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) for the export of arms or arms production-related equipment.48 Two Cabinet Orders support this law: the Export Trade Control Order49 and the Foreign Exchange Control Order.50 Annex 1 of the first Cabinet Order lists the controlled goods and destinations; the Annex to the second Cabinet Order lists the controlled technologies.51 Numerous ministerial orders also apply to the licensing of sensitive exports in Japan.52

Japan controls a multiple-category list of items for security purposes, including missiles, navigation, weapons, munitions, telecommunications, and sensors and lasers.53 The government modifies these lists periodically to comply with its international obligations under the Wassenaar Arrangement, the MTCR, and others.54

Violators of the export controls laws may face imprisonment, fines, or penalties.55 The exporter may also have its export privileges curtailed or revoked for violations of the law.56

Russia

Russian law specifies that space technologies may be products whose export shall be banned or restricted.57 Russia comprehensively changed its export controls law in its 1999 Law on Export Controls, which includes ten implementing acts designed to address varying aspects of the law.58 The Export Control Department of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade has responsibility for developing control lists, issuing licenses for technologies, materials, and goods related to weapons of mass destruction, and authorizing regional commissioners to issue licenses for the export of controlled commodities.59 Other governmental agencies also have export control responsibilities. Rosobornexport, a Federal State Unitary Enterprise operating under the Ministry of Defence, has responsibility for licensing exports of arms and dual-use defence articles.60 Rosaviakosmos reviews export licenses for missile-related items and technologies.61 General export licenses for export of dual-use technologies will only be issued to enterprises with accredited internal compliance programmes; otherwise, single-issue licenses may be available.62 The export control lists are complex and may overlap among agencies, but they generally follow the control lists of international regimes.63

3.5

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Article 31 of the Export Control Law specifies that violators may be subject to criminal, administrative, and civil legal penalties, including fines and the loss of export privileges.64 The decision to revoke export privileges is made by an interdepartmental export control commission.65 Under the 1996 Criminal Code, as amended, violators are also subject to penalties under the 1996 Criminal Code, such as fines and imprisonment.66

United States

United States export control laws apply to virtually every international transaction. In most cases, the controls permit the transactions under a general license, Technical Assistance Agreement, or through broad regulatory exemptions. The Bureau of Industry and Security in the United States Department of Commerce similarly has authority to prohibit any assistance with an export transaction involving parties or entities determined to have violated United States export control laws.67 Prior to initiating a transaction, the exporter must ensure that the other party is not on the Commerce Department Denied Persons List and Entities List.68 Export violations under the Commerce rules can result in civil penalties and denial of export privileges.

The United States Department of State also maintains a list of debarred parties who are prohibited from participating in any transaction in which a State Department licensee is involved.69 The State Department regulates the export of munitions, technical data, and technologies that are specifically designed or modified for military use, under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).70 The State Department has the authority to designate a technology as a “munition,” if in its opinion national security concerns warrant the control.71 As a result of this broad authority, dual-use space technologies are routinely categorized as munitions and fall within this regulatory scheme. For as long as national security concerns persist, the State Department will exercise its superior jurisdiction, even if the Department of Commerce concurrently believes it has jurisdiction over the controlled item. Once an item is deemed to be a munition, it is very difficult to have the item declassified. As a result, the munitions list is too inclusive and is out of date, not having been updated since 1992.72 The State Department can impose fines and imprisonment for export violations and can debar a violator, so that it becomes ineligible to receive State Department licensed technology.73

3.2.3 Forms of Space Cooperation

International cooperation should be conducted in the modes that are considered most effective and appropriate by the countries concerned through governmental and non-governmental arrangements, such as global, multilateral, regional or bilateral agreements.74 Our surveyed countries have different preferences on the forms of agreements for space activities and their contractual requirements, and they will vary in duration and the extent to which risks, knowledge, and resources are shared.

NASA, for instance, most frequently utilises Memoranda of Understanding (MOU’s) and letter agreements with its foreign cooperative partners.75 NASA uses the term MOU to mean a significant agreement, binding under international law and procedurally consistent with certain requirements of American law.76 MOU’s are used for significant cooperative activities that have a major budget impact, are long-term, or have a high degree of programmatic, policy, or political importance.77 For agreements that do not meet this level of significance, NASA traditionally employs a letter agreement with the foreign governmental entity or international organisation, accompanied by a letter from the foreign partner indicating its acceptance of the terms and conditions of the letter agreement.78

NASA MOU’s and letter agreements must contain certain provisions: description of cooperation; responsibilities; financial arrangements; risk allocation/liability; intellectual property rights and transfer of goods and technical data; effective date, duration, and termination; Anti-Deficiency Act;79 and a signature block.80 As it relates to the allocation of risk and liability, NASA’s international agreements require cross-waivers of liability, including liability under the Liability Convention for 3.6 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

spaceflight agreements.81 As indicated in section 2.5.9, supra, Japan traditionally resisted such cross- waiver agreements as contrary to public policy and law. In more recent times, however, the two countries have agreed on a general form of cross-waivers that can be applied to numerous projects.

NASA also makes clear that its cooperative activities do not include joint development of technology or products and processes that could have near-term commercial value.82 Instead, NASA structures its contractual clauses so that each party can retain intellectual property rights in the technology developed independently by each party.83 Subject to United States export control laws, NASA agreements obligate the parties to transfer only those technical data and goods necessary to fulfill that party’s contractual obligations, including interface, integration, and safety data.84 In contrast, NASA willingly shares scientific results among the cooperating parties.85

ESA treats the MOU process as the highest-level formal document used with NASA in cooperative projects, and it must be signed for ESA by the director general, after unanimous approval of all member states.86 ESA’s execution of an MOU is perceived to be a more binding commitment by the member states (which have ratified the authority of the director general), than execution of the same MOU by NASA which does not purport to bind the United States.87

Not all international partners wish to take such a formalistic approach to contractual arrangements. For example, ESA and Japan took a different stance from NASA during negotiations over a set of polar-orbiting missions named the International Earth Observation System (IEOS). In the area of intellectual property rights, for instance, ESA and Japan preferred joint arrangements between the instrument and platform providers, but did not want to legally define those rights in a multilateral agreement.88 NASA, on the other hand, sought to retain data rights for instrument providers, defined by a legal framework.89 Similar stumbling blocks existed in the negotiations for data exchanges, technology transfer, and management authority.90 Although the parties did conclude several bilateral MOU’s (except for ESA), the parties never could agree on the implementation plan for IEOS nor the general framework for the mission management.91

During the last two decades or more, China has joined bilateral, regional, multilateral and international space agreements in different forms, such as commercial launching service, which have yielded extensive achievements.92 Since 1985, China has successively signed inter-governmental or inter-agency cooperative agreements, protocols or memoranda, and has established long-term cooperative relations with many countries, including the United States, Italy, Germany, Britain, France, Japan, Sweden, Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Ukraine and Chile.93 China implements bilateral space cooperation through reciprocal space programs and exchanges of scholars and specialists; by sponsoring symposia to jointly developing satellite or satellite parts; and by providing satellite piggyback service and commercial launching service.94

For instance, a Sino-German joint venture, EurasSpace GmbH, was established that led to a contract on the development, manufacture, and successful launch of SinoSat-1 in 1998.95 Collaboration between China and Brazil for an earth resources satellite has a long history of bilateral contracts, and the first satellite was successfully launched by China on October 14, 1999. These parties also are cooperating in the areas of satellite technology, satellite application and satellite components.96

China attaches great importance to space cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.97 In furtherance of this regional cooperation, the governments of China, Iran, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Pakistan and Thailand signed the "Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Small Multi-Mission Satellite and Related Activities" in Thailand in April 1998.98

In the Russian Federation, Rosaviakosmos has authority to execute international contracts on behalf of the government, subject to budget financing.99 It may enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements directly or through its controlled companies.100 Cooperative agreements regulated under Russian law must be written and must contain provisions consistent with Russian law, including the correct party 3.7

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

designations, the parties’ rights and obligations, the commencement date, termination procedures, and jurisdiction.101 For space research and development projects, special contracts are used to specify the creation and protection of intellectual property rights, the registration of the intellectual property under Russian law, and the procedures for transferring intellectual property rights to third parties.102 Russia recognizes the legal validity of joint ventures, consortia, associations, and alliances, based on the mutual agreement of the international participants and subject to regulation under Russian legislation for international investments.103

Despite these differences in contractual approaches, the surveyed countries have successfully negotiated large-scale cooperative agreements with each other. The most obvious example of cooperation among our surveyed countries, with the exception of China, is the agreement for the International Space Station. The basic agreement provides a framework for the design, development, operation, and utilisation for the space station.104 Underlying the basic agreement are individual MOU’s and related agreements between NASA and each other country’s governments, specifying the individual rights and obligations of the parties, and several implementing agreements.105

REFERENCES

1 As an intergovernmental organisation, ESA does not have the legal capacity to ratify the treaties. By signing, it agrees to be bound by the treaties. For all purposes of this discussion, ESA is treated as a member state. 2 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003; Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972 http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liabilitytxt.html, August 21, 2003; Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/rescue.html, August 29, 2003; Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SORegister/regist.html, August 29, 2003; Agreement Governing the Activity of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw, August 28, 2003. 3 http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw 4 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 5 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article I, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 6 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article I, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 7 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article I, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 8 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article III, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 9 Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article IX, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 10 United Nations Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article XI, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 11 Kurt Klaus, “Towards a New Legal Framework for the Exploitation of Lunar Resources,” International Space University, Summer Session 2003. 12 United Nations Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liabilitytxt.html, August 21, 2003.

3.8 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

13 United Nations Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article VII, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 14 United Nations Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Article I, 1972, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liabilitytxt.html, August 21, 2003. 15 United Nations Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Articles V, XXIII, 1972, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liabilitytxt.html, August 21, 2003. 16 United Nations Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space, Principles II, IV, 1986, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/rs.html, August 21, 2003. 17 United Nations Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space, Principle V, 1986, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/rs.html, August 21, 2003. 18 United Nations Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space, Principle V, 1986, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/rs.html, August 21, 2003. 19 United Nations Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space, Principles VII, VIII, XIII, 1986, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/rs.html, August 21, 2003. 20 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, paragraph 3, 1996, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/spben.html, August 21, 2003. 21 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, paragraph 2, 1996, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/spben.html, August 21, 2003. 22 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, paragraph 5, 1996, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/spben.html, August 21, 2003. 23 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, paragraph 6, 1996, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/spben.html, August 21, 2003. 24 Gill, B., Ebata, K., and Stephenson, M.: Japan’s Export Control Initiatives: Meeting New Non-Proliferation Challenges, The Non-Proliferation Review, Fall 1996, pp. 30-31, 1996. 25 Gill, B., Ebata, K., and Stephenson, M.: Japan’s Export Control Initiatives: Meeting New Non-Proliferation Challenges, The Non-Proliferation Review, Fall 1996, pp. 32, 33, 1996. 26 Lipson, M.: The Reincarnation of COCOM: Explaining Post Cold War Export Controls, The Non- Proliferation Review, Winter 1999, pp. 33-34, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/62/lipson62.pdf, August 18, 2003. 27 Lipson, M.: The Reincarnation of COCOM: Explaining Post Cold War Export Controls, The Non- Proliferation Review, Winter 1999, pp. 33-34, 39, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/62/lipson62.pdf, August 18, 2003. 28 http://www.usun-vienna.rpo.at/wassenaar/, August 18, 2003. 29 http://www.wassenaar.org/list/wa-list_02_tableofcontents.html, August 21, 2003. 30 http://www.wassenaar.org/welcomepage.html, August 18, 2003. 31 http://www.wassenaar.org/welcomepage.html, August 18, 2003. 32 http://www.mtcr.info/english/, August 18, 2003. 33 http://www.mtcr.info/english/objectives.html, August 18, 2003. 34 http://www.mtcr.info/english/objectives.html, August 18, 2003. 35 http://www.mtcr.info/english/objectives.html, August 18, 2003. 36 http://www.mtcr.info/english/partners.html, August 21, 2003. 37 Beck, M., Katsva, M. and Khripunov, I.: Assessing Proliferation Controls in Russia, p. 5, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_Russia_2001.htm, August 8, 2003. 38 Yuan, Jing-Dong: Assessing Chinese Non-Proliferation Policy: Progress, Problems and Issues for the United States, Prepared Statement for the US-China Security Review Comm’n Hearing on China’s Proliferation Policies on October 12, 2001, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/other/jdtest.htm. August 7, 2003. 39 Full Text of China’s Regulations on Export Control of Missiles, Missile-Related Items and Technologies (August 25, 2002), http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/33977.html. August 7, 2003. 40 Id. 41 Id. at Article 3. 42 Id. at p. 4. 43 Id. at Article 10. 44 Id. at Articles 18-22.

3.9

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

45 Jiaxuan, H.E. Tang, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: Statement by H.E. Tang Jiaxuan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China and Head of the Chinese Delegation, at the General Debate of the 57th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 14, 2002, http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/34805.html. August 7, 2003. 46 http://www.nti.org/db/china/mtcrorg.htm, August 21, 2003. 47 Joint United States-People's Republic Of China Statement On Missile Proliferation. October 4, 1994, http://www.nti.org/db/china/engdocs/mtcrusch.htm, August 22, 2003. 48 Gaikoku Kaware oyobi Gaikoku Boeki Kanri-ho [the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Control Law, Law No. 228, December 1, 1949. 49 Yushutsu Boeki Kanri-rei, Order No. 378, December 1, 1949. 50 Gaikoku Kawase Kanri-rei, Order No. 260, October 11, 1980. 51 Gaikoku Kawase Kanri-rei, Order No. 260, October 11, 1980; Yushutsu Boeki Kanri-rei, Order No. 378, December 1, 1949. 52 Cupitt, R.: Nonpreliferation Export Controls in Japan, p. 4, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_japan.htm, August 9, 2003. 53 Cupitt, R.: Nonpreliferation Export Controls in Japan, p. 4, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_japan.htm, August 9, 2003. 54 Cupitt, R.: Nonpreliferation Export Controls in Japan, p. 6, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_japan.htm, August 9, 2003. 55 Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Control Law, Article 69-6, Law No. 228, December 1, 1949. 56 Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Control Law, Articles 25-2, 53, Law No. 228, December 1, 1949. 57 Law of the Russian Federation About Space Activities, Decree No. 5663-1 of the Russian House of Soviets, Section II, Article 11, http://www.fas/org/spp/civil/russia/annex_12.htm, August 8, 2003. 58 Federal Law on Export Control, July 29, 1999, http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/excon/laws.htm, August 9, 2003. 59 Beck, M., Katsva, M. and Khripunov, I.: Assessing Proliferation Controls in Russia, p. 2, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_Russia_2001.htm, August 8, 2003. See also Presidential Edict No. 1005, August 9, 2001 (approving a list of missile-related equipment, materials and technologies that are subject to export control), http://law.optima.ru, August 18, 2003; Government Decree No. 477, June 21, 2001; http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/excon/laws.htm, August 9, 2003. 60 Beck, M., Katsva, M. and Khripunov, I.: Assessing Proliferation Controls in Russia, p. 2, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_Russia_2001.htm, August 8, 2003. 61 Beck, M., Katsva, M. and Khripunov, I.: Assessing Proliferation Controls in Russia, p. 3, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_Russia_2001.htm, August 8, 2003. 62 Beck, M., Katsva, M. and Khripunov, I.: Assessing Proliferation Controls in Russia, p. 3, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_Russia_2001.htm, August 8, 2003. 63 Beck, M., Katsva, M. and Khripunov, I.: Assessing Proliferation Controls in Russia, pp. 3-4, 7, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_Russia_2001.htm, August 8, 2003; Government Decree No. 447, June 14, 2001, http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/excon/laws.htm, August 9, 2003. 64 Export Control Law, Article 31, 1999. 65 Beck, M., Katsva, M. and Khripunov, I.: Assessing Proliferation Controls in Russia, p. 9, http://www.uga.edu/cits/ttxc/nat_eval_Russia_2001.htm, August 8, 2003. 66 Criminal Code, Articles 189, 188, 283, 355, 220, and 221, 1996, as amended by Federal Law No. 50, May 7, 2002.. 67 Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. sections 730 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2003. 68 http://chaos.fedworld.gov/bxa/prohib.html, August 18, 2003. 6922 C.F.R. sections 120 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2003. 70 22 U.S.C.A. section 2778, West Publishing, 1990 & Supp. 2003; 22 C.F.R. section 120 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2003. 71 22 C.F.R. section 120 et seq., Government Printing Office, 2003. 72 Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry: Final Report, p. 6-11, November 2002: http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/index.shtml, September 1, 2003. 73 22 U.S.C.A. section 2780(j), (k), West Publishing, 1990 & Supp. 2003. 74 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, paragraph 4, 1986, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/spben.html, August 21, 2003. 75 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003.

3.10 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

76 Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, and its implementing regulations, 22 C.F.R. Part 181 (2002). 77 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.2, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 78 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.3, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 79 This provision states that all promises made by NASA are subject to availability of funds appropriated by Congress. NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.19, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 80 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 81 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, sections 3.5.9, 3.5.9.1, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 82 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.1, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 83 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.10, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 84 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.10.3, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 85 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.10, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 86 European Science Foundation National Research Council: U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, p. 40, National Academy Press, 1998. 87 European Science Foundation National Research Council: U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, p. 40, National Academy Press, 1998. 88 Sadeh, E.: A Failure of International Space Cooperation: the International Earth Observation System, Space Policy, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 141-42, May 2002. 89 Sadeh, E.: A Failure of International Space Cooperation: the International Earth Observation System, Space Policy, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 141, May 2002. 90 Sadeh, E.: A Failure of International Space Cooperation: the International Earth Observation System, Space Policy, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 140-41, 142-44, May 2002. 91 Sadeh, E.: A Failure of International Space Cooperation: the International Earth Observation System, Space Policy, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 140, May 2002. 92 White Papers of the Government, China’s Space Activities, http://test.china.org.cn/e-white/8/20-5.htm, August 25, 2003. 93 White Papers of the Government, China’s Space Activities, http://test.china.org.cn/e-white/8/20-5.htm, August 25, 2003. 94 White Papers of the Government, China’s Space Activities, http://test.china.org.cn/e-white/8/20-5.htm, August 25, 2003. 95 White Papers of the Government, China’s Space Activities, http://test.china.org.cn/e-white/8/20-5.htm, August 25, 2003. 96 White Papers of the Government, China’s Space Activities, http://test.china.org.cn/e-white/8/20-5.htm, August 25, 2003. 97 White Papers of the Government, China’s Space Activities, http://test.china.org.cn/e-white/8/20-5.htm, August 25, 2003. 98 White Papers of the Government, China’s Space Activities, http://test.china.org.cn/e-white/8/20-5.htm, August 25, 2003. 99 Regulation of the Russian Aviation and Space Agency, Article 3, Clauses 11, 16; Article 4, Clauses 10, 28, 30, 31, 37, 38, and 45 (approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation, No. 1186), October 25, 1999, as provided by N. Tokarevskaya, Legal Adviser, August 27, 2003.

3.11

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

100 Provided by N. Tokarevskaya, Legal Adviser, August 27, 2003. 101 Civil Code of Russian Federation, Part I, Chapter 9, paras. 1-2 (approved by State Duma No. 51-03, with further revisions and amendments), November 30, 1994, provided by N. Tokarevskaya, Legal Adviser, August 27, 2003. 102 Civil Code of Russian Federation, Part I, Chapter 37, Paragraph 4, Articles 758-62; Chapter 38, Articles 769- 78 (approved by State Duma, No. 51-03, with the further amendments and additions), November 30, 1994, provided by N. Tokarevskaya, Legal Adviser, August 27, 2003. 103 Civil Code of Russian Federation, Part I, Chapter 48, Clause 4, Article 121 (approved by State Duma, No. 51-03, with the further amendments and additions), November 30, 1994; The Law of Russian Federation On the Foreign Investments in the Russian Federation, No. 160-FZ, July 9, 1999, provided by N. Tokarevskaya, Legal Adviser, August 27, 2003. 104 Agreement Among the Government of Canada, Governments of the Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America Concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, January 29, 1998, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1998/IGA.html, August 22, 2003. 105 Agreement Among the Government of Canada, Governments of the Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America Concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, January 29, 1998, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1998/IGA.html, August 22, 2003.

3.12 International Space University, SSP03

4 CASE STUDIES FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SPACE

4.1 Rationale for the Case Studies and Case Study Selection

During the technology survey, the TRACKS team realised that by examining several case studies of cooperation, it could more easily understand how ESA and the countries under study might cooperate in the future. The team selected three case studies as examples of starting or on-going cooperation projects, and these case studies were assessed across ESA and the four countries of the survey.

The case studies in this report were carefully selected to ensure a balance between the different domains of space technology R&D activity, the different forms of collaboration, and different applications of the technology. Additionally, the case studies were also chosen to showcase the influence of policy, legal and technology transfer considerations on technology R&D cooperation. Several criteria were defined for the selection of the case studies. The selected studies should be: • Complementary in scope – the studies should explore cooperation potentials in different domains of space activity; • Address different technologies – the studies should cover, collectively, the full range of technologies surveyed in the four countries; • Of potential interest to one or more space agencies – the studies should ideally be projects of real interest to at least one of the space agencies in the survey, or they should have a strong chance of appealing to these agencies; • Well documented – the case studies are used as a means to highlight space technology R&D and cooperation issues, and are not intended to propose new mission concepts. In identifying potential case studies, reference was made to published studies or previous ISU reports; • Exhibit a clear link to the survey – each case study should have a clearly identifiable link to one or more aspects of the survey, namely the technology requirements for R&D or cooperation; • Link to other concurrent ISU Team Projects – to benefit from the skills present at ISU at the time of the case study, a conscious effort was made to select case studies that could be supported by the two other Team Projects (Moon and Climate) or by previous ISU studies; • Chosen to motivate the project team to explore technology cooperation issues in practical situations– a variety of ideas for case studies were proposed and championed by the team members and the final selection was made by consensus, based on the above criteria.

With these criteria in mind, the following case studies were identified: a) Ground-based test and simulation facilities for future human and robotic exploration missions beyond LEO; b) World Space Observatory – a dedicated facility for ultraviolet astronomy; c) Enabling Integrated and Coordinated Use of Space Technologies for Refugee Camps.

4.2 Case Study A: Simulation Facilities

4.2.0 Introduction

This case study is concerned with identifying and analyzing international cooperation opportunities among Europe, China, Japan, Russia and the U.S.A. in the field of ground-based test and simulation facilities for future human and robotic exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Ground- based test and simulation facilities provide simulated environments where nearly all elements of planetary missions can be tested and optimized. Put simply, the intent is to “fly the mission on the ground.”

4.1

CASE STUDIES

The benefits of introducing ground-based test and simulation facilities can be summarized in four points: • Reduced technical and operational risks; • Improved cost estimating practices; • Improved schedule estimating practices; • Creation of viable relationships for future beyond-LEO planetary missions.

Ground-based test and simulation facilities support the proper identification, assessment, and mitigation of technical and operational risks by involving all elements at an early stage including mission operations, medical procedures, psychological effects, crew selection, life support, communications, vehicle and habitat design, in-situ utilisation, power systems, robotics, and rovers. Test and simulation facilities are also effective in the validation of maintenance and contingency plans. Further reductions in risk and cost would be possible by involving non-traditional space industries, governments and universities in the setup and use of these facilities.

The integration of test and simulation facilities enables agencies to test various management techniques that could be used for long-duration exploration missions. The refined management approaches would translate into more effective cost and schedule estimation processes.

Ground-based test and simulation facilities are suitable for the development of viable policies, agreements, and relationships among all partners and thus foster cooperation in the early phase of an exploratory mission.

Our assessment included the following aspects relevant to ground-based test and simulation facilities: • Risks associated to cooperation in simulation facilities; • Contribution of the five partners to the mutual advancement of critical capabilities through the use of Earth-based assets for future human/robotic exploration missions; • Legal and political challenges of cooperation in simulation facilities; • Assessment of cooperative models: pure collaboration vs. lead agency.

Table 4.1: Model for understanding cooperation potentials.

4.2 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

In this case study, attention was focused on the surveyed space agencies of China, Japan, Russia, the U.S.A. together with Europe. Two initiatives in these regions of interest should be highlighted: • NASA’s Integrated Human Exploration Mission Simulation Facility (INTEGRITY): The concept behind INTEGRITY was the starting point and inspiration for this case study. NASA’s goal with INTEGRITY is to simulate accurately all elements of a series of long- duration human planetary exploration missions. Our study focused on the incorporation of international partners. • ESA’s Aurora Program: The Aurora program is Europe’s framework for human and robotic exploration missions; therefore, it is responsible for the long term plans, goals, program structure, robotics, technology development, and coordination of activities with international partners.

4.2.1 Risk Assessment

Risk assessment and mitigation is a key to good program management. To enable ESA and its potential partners to succeed in a cooperative mission simulation, a risk analysis tool has been developed. Relative risk has been evaluated based on three factors, political risk, technical risk, and funding risk. A Decision Analysis methodology has been employed to provide a relative ranking of potential cooperative arrangements. This analysis was performed based upon the views and needs of ESA as perceived by the team. However, this analysis tool should be used by managers internal to ESA in order to evaluate the risk from their own points of view.

Methodology

In order to provide a realistic evaluation of the risk, it was necessary to understand the relative importance of each of the three risk factors, and then to weight them according to their importance to the success of the mission. The technical risk was assessed as the primary factor, followed by political risk and finally funding risk. To measure the risks, each factor was given a weight: Technical—46%; Political—37%; Funding—17%; for a total of 100%. In order to obtain these values, the determination of the order of importance from ESA’s point of view was started. The outcome from most important to least important was as follows: • Technical (the amount of benefit gained by the sharing of technical expertise); • Political (the amount of benefit gained by having the project operate under the title of an “international effort”); • Funding (the amount of benefit gained by other entities bringing resources and funding into the project).

Next, deciding the relative importance of each factor was attempted. As a starting point, an arbitrary value of 10 was assigned to funding. Then it was decided that ESA might find the political aspects slightly more than 2 times as important and assigned it a value of 22. Finally, the technical benefits of having the other countries participate was decided to be slightly less than 3 times as important as the funding and was assigned a value of 28. Then, these values were divided by their total to reach percentage values of 10/60, 22/60, and 28/60. These were taken as a rough estimate of the Technical, Political, and Funding weighting percentages, respectively, which yielded percentages of 16.6%, 36.6% and 46.6%. To reach a total of exactly 100%, the two lower values were rounded up and the highest value rounded down, yielding 46% - Technical, 37% - Political and 17% - Funding.

After establishing the weight of the factors, an evaluation was performed of how the various cooperative relationships compare to each other. There are 16 possible cooperative arrangements, ranging from no cooperation to cooperation with all four agencies in our survey. The processes to determine how the different cooperative arrangements compare with each other for each factor are described below. Once the rankings 1 through 16 were established for each of our factors, the rankings were then multiplied by the weights. The total of the weighted rankings equalled the Risk Value, and potential cooperative arrangements were then compared based on this value.

4.3

CASE STUDIES

Political Risk Assessment

The political relationships of each of our four countries with respect to ESA and with respect to each other were evaluated and a political relationships table was developed. Countries’ relationships were evaluated as best, good, medium, and least favourable. These rankings were then assigned numerical values. The absolute value of the number was meaningless in and of itself; it only makes sense in the relation to the other numbers to provide a comparison that moves us from the subjective stoplight chart to quantitative values. Working alone was given a value of 0 signifying that there are no external obstacles to determining ones own space agenda. Relationships evaluated as best carry slightly more overhead than working independently; however, establishing the working arrangements is politically simple so a small value was added giving best a value of 100. Relationships received an evaluation of good if there has been a historical record of working together; however, if for political reasons the working arrangements are slightly more complicated, then this complication factor (500) was added, giving good a value of 600. As relationships become more complicated they were evaluated as medium or least favourable. Each consecutive lower ranking added an additional complication factor to the relationship, resulting in 1100 for medium and 1600 for least favourable. The combination of partners that provided the lowest overall value would be considered the best, while the highest overall value would be considered the least favourable. The combinations were then ranked 1 through 16.

ESA China Japan Russia U.S. ESA 0 600 100 600 100 China 0 1100 100 1600 Japan 0 600 100 Russia 0 600 U.S. 0

Table 4.2: Political risk analysis figures used in case study.

To establish the political risk value, a formula was developed based on two factors. The first factor was the historical quality of the relationships of the potential partners (which was the average value of the partners in each of our 16 cases). The second factor was termed a “political gain factor” (51% of the complication factor, or 255); this factor was multiplied by the number of partners involved in the cooperative effort. The “political gain factor” was established to reflect the added political value of working with more partners. The value of the “political gain factor” was chosen to show that cooperating with two or more countries was enough to outweigh some, but not all, of the complication factors. This value would be subtracted in order to lower the overall cooperation risk value. The table below shows the final rankings of each combination from the perceived viewpoint of ESA.

4.4 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Political Risk

16 Lower value is better 14

Risk Value 6

e a ia S S S S S n +J +R +R ss U C J+R U J US U US No apan C J+ +U + +U + Chin J Ru C+US R C+ +J R R C C+R+ J+ J+ C+ ESA's Potential Partners

Table 4.3: Political risk analysis of ESA’s potential partners ranked 1-16.

Funding Risk Assessment

The funding risk was evaluated for each potential cooperation activity to establish a relative ranking. Our funding risk was based on the current budgets and directions of each space program. The relative ranking of the partners was based on the potential to help establish financial security for the program. An overhead factor was also introduced that increased by an order of magnitude with the addition of each international partner. For example, if working alone, ESA incurred an overhead of $1M (USD), working with one partner would increase the overhead to $10M (USD) (Note: these are just arbitrary values to show that complexity would grow by an order of magnitude for each additional partner participating in the project and they should not be interpreted as the actual values used in the analysis). The table below shows the final rankings of each combination.

Funding Risk

14 Lower value is better 12

Risk Value 6

n ia S J R R S S S ne ina s U + + US US U U U o h s C C + J+R + J+ +US N C Japa u C J+US R + J+ R+ R R C + + C J+R+ J+ C + C ESA's Potential Partners

Table 4.4: Funding risk analysis of ESA’s potential partners ranked 1-16.

4.5

CASE STUDIES

Technical Risk Assessment

To evaluate technical risk, our Country Technology Surveys were used to establish which capabilities are currently available, which are planned near-term developments, which are planned long-term developments, and which have no plans. Countries were given a technology value based on the sum of these capabilities. As partners were added, their technology values were also added. To account for the conflict arising from managing independent capabilities (e.g. Russian and U.S. EVA equipment), a “conflict factor” was established that would lower the technology value for each conflicting current capability. The “conflict factor” was given a value equal to that of a current capability. The number of conflicts was then multiplied by this factor and subtracted from the technology value, thus eliminating a double-booking of capabilities. The table below shows the final rankings of each combination. Table 4.5: Technical risk analysis of ESA’s potential partners ranked 1-16.

Technical Risk

16 Lower value is better 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

a n S J R S R S S S S S n a sia + + + +R U U s U C +U J +U +U +U +US None C J +J R Chi Jap C R C +J +R+ Ru C +R+ J C +J+ C ESA's P otential P artners

Overall Risk Assessment

After establishing the relative values of each combination for each risk factor, each factor was multiplied by its overall weight to determine the overall risk. Next, an overall rank order was established from the least potential risk to greatest potential risk. The table below shows the final rankings of each combination in order from least risk to greatest risk. It also shows how each factor contributed to its overall risk value.

4.6 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Overall Risk

14 Lower value is better 12

10 Technical 8 Funding Political Risk Value Risk 6

R J a US US US US US an sia ne + + + J+ +US C+R J+R p C+ s hin R+ J + C R+US Ja C No +J +R C Ru C J C+ C+J+R+US ESA's Potential Partners

Table 4.6: Overall risk analysis of ESA’s potential partners ranked 1-16.

Summary and Recommendations

Based on our evaluation, it appears that broad international cooperation efforts provide the best means to mitigate overall risks for ESA. ESA will certainly benefit from interaction with the major space powers when approaching a Mission Simulation effort.

Although each agency certainly adds value to the project in each area (technical, funding, or political), certain agencies seemed to add value to a particular area more than others. For example, it was found that the Russian Space Agency tended to add most value to the cooperative effort because of its strong, broad technical background. It was also found that Chinese National Space Agency’s main contribution at this point in time would probably be funding. Also, the main benefit of having the Japanese agencies involved was the extra political gain associated with having them participate. Finally, it appeared that NASA’s involvement contributed to reducing the overall risk because of its ability to contribute to all areas.

Our results also suggest areas where ESA should focus its energy to maximize successful international efforts. ESA should focus on: • Activities that promote China and U.S. cooperation; • Activities that meet Russian and Japanese funding goals; • Measures to minimize the impact from conflicting capabilities.

The risk assessment process described above is intended to help decision-makers understand the implications of different cooperative arrangements. It is by no means an attempt to replace sound judgment and reasoning. Decision-makers are encouraged to provide their own “weights” based on what is important to them. ESA and other organisations are encouraged to modify this process based on their own priorities. The decision analysis tool has been included on the CD that accompanies this document.

4.7

CASE STUDIES

4.2.2 Capability Analysis

In order to analyze the Earth-based assets that could be used in advancing critical capabilities, the team created a table of mission simulation facilities. This table clarifies and simplifies the study of resources of the five space agencies. The simulation centres identified in the table were chosen for their capabilities in different areas of mission simulation. Only the human and robotic mission testing and training facilities with a wide range of research possibilities were included.

The facility capabilities were analyzed in thirteen focus areas, which represent some of the most important capabilities that must be improved before performing human/robotic beyond-LEO planetary missions: 1. Robotics testing: Facilities used for testing and validating rover movement and robotic functions in conditions that are close to those of the mission’s destination. This usually means terrain chambers, but on some desert-like areas outdoor tests are also done. 2. Astronaut training facilities: Facilities used for crew training to meet the mission’s technical and physical requirements. 3. Isolation training facilities: Facilities used for studying and optimizing the group and social aspects of long-term missions. Identification of potential problems and test solutions. 4. Autonomous navigation and control: Facilities used for testing and validating autonomous navigation and control. 5. Communications: Facilities used to test and validate data transmission between the mission vehicle and the operations control centre with power losses and noise characteristics of space communications. 6. Weather and climate conditions: Facilities used for testing and validating responses to environmental hazards such as Martian dust storms and illumination changes. 7. Science techniques: Facilities used for testing and validating scientific equipment and processes under simulated conditions. 8. Operations: Facilities used for testing and validating operational procedures for nominal, contingency, and corrective action processes. 9. Logistics and maintenance: Facilities used for analyzing the amount of equipment and resources needed for a fully functional mission. 10. Human/Robotics interaction: Facilities used for human/robotic interaction analysis. Emphasis on understanding the optimal mix of humans and robotic systems in accomplishing a task. 11. Gravity levels: Facilities used to simulate the changes in gravity by hypo/hyper-gravity simulation facilities, suspension, submerging in water or other methods. 12. Interfaces: Facilities used to test and validate electrical, mechanical, and software interfaces. 13. Landing conditions: Facilities used for testing and validating landing under various conditions: hard, semi-hard, and soft.

4.8 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

●Highly focused Capability studies ◎Partly Facilities focused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Haughton-Mars (NASA) ●◎◎ ● ●● ●● Desert RATS (NASA) ●●◎ ● ● ● NEEMO (NASA) ◎◎ ◎● Mars Yard (NASA) ● ● INTERGRITY (NASA) ●● ●● ●●● ● 90-day test chamber (NASA) ●◎ ◎ ◎ Microgravity KC-135 aeroplane (NASA) ● ● Dryden test flight center (NASA) ● AMSAN DLR Cologne (DLR) ● ● COMEX (ESA) ◎ ◎ ● European Astronaut Center (ESA) ● ● Concordia Station (ESA) ● ◎ A-300 zero-g aeroplane (CNES) ● ● SEROM Rover Test (CNES) ● ● Hypobaric and hyperbaric chamber (China) ● Full scale spacecraft training platform (China) ● ◎ ◎ Beijing Aerospace Center Centrifuge (China) ● ● Landing shock tower (China) ● ● NPO Lavotchkin (Russia) ● ◎ ● ● ● ● ● VNII Transmash (Russia) ● ◎ ●◎ Energia (Russia) ● ●● ●●● ● ● Kamsatchka vulcanic area (Russia) ● ● IMBP (Russia) ●● ● ◎ Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre (Russia) ● ●● Russia microgravity II-76 aeroplanes (Russia) ● ● Isolation training facility (Japan) ●● Hypobaric chamber (Japan) ● Admunson Scott South Pole Station (multinational) ● ◎

1-Robotics testing 4- Autonomous 7- Science 10- Human/Robotics 13- Landing navigation and techniques interaction conditions control 2-Astronaut training 5- Communications 8- operations 11- Gravity levels facilities 3- Isolated training 6- Weather-climate 9- Logistics and 12- Interfaces facilities conditions maintenance Table 4.7: Facility vs. capability assessment

4.9

CASE STUDIES

Observations and Conclusions

To structure an approach for understanding the complexity of mission simulation, we focussed on three necessary aspects defining capability: facilities, expertise and equipment. Individual development of facilities, equipment, and expertise in every area required for successful mission simulation can be very costly in terms of time and money.

The facilities table lists available infrastructure to support mission simulations for long-term exploration missions. What is clear at first glance is that the U.S. and Russia have the preponderance of available facilities. However, Russian facilities are often out-dated. Europe, China and Japan have very capable facilities for human training, yet other capabilities appear limited. The chart also reveals many categories in which there is no current capability or very limited capability. These offer a potential for international cooperation.

The required expertise for setting up and operating simulation facilities offers an important opportunity for international cooperation. The U.S. and Russia hold the lead in terms of expertise, gained through successful planetary missions. Europe is in the process of building expertise in this field. China’s commitment to increasing expertise can also be observed in the investment performed in simulation and test facilities, in line with the space policy and plans. Japan can be noted as having acquired substantial expertise in space life sciences.

International cooperation can be also structured around the design, implementation, and integration of test equipment to support simulation facilities for long-term exploration missions. This can be in the form of installation refurbishment/upgrade and technology transfer.

4.2.3 Legal and Political Aspects

The Mission Simulation Case Study involves only ground-based facilities; therefore, the international space treaties do not apply. Other international law controls the contractual rights and obligations of the parties, unless another choice of law is specified. For example, since this case study contemplates the development of technologies and processes for long-term human missions, the cooperating parties must comply with national technology transfer limitations and export controls.1

NASA’s contractual clauses usually provide that each party can retain intellectual property rights in the technology developed independently by each party, particularly jointly developed technologies, products, and processes that could have near-term commercial value.23 The parties will need to agree in advance about whether technologies will be developed jointly or independently and whether intellectual property rights will be shared.

All of our surveyed space programs impose some form of control over technology exports.4 United States export control laws are currently especially restrictive towards China, and these limitations pose the greatest hurdle to cooperation. Yet, with advanced planning, these controls need not pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation. The involvement of the United States might need to be limited to technologies that can be cleared beforehand for export, or China might need to be a limited partner on areas dealing with sensitive technologies. Since the mission simulation facilities are ground-based, the majority of the technologies probably would not be considered dual-use. Therefore, they would not be controlled as munitions, allowing the parties to share more information than would normally be the case. Additionally, NASA agreements usually permit parties to transfer technical data and goods necessary to fulfil that party’s contractual obligations, such as interface, integration, and safety data.5

Data transfers of scientific results among the cooperating parties are also possible.6 For example, data from life sciences studies regarding the effects of the mission simulator on astronauts could likely be shared without significant legal or political problems.

4.10 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

As with all joint missions of this nature, the cooperating parties run a risk that one partner will lose its funding due to economic or political changes. Indeed, NASA refuses to enter into cooperative agreements unless its obligations are conditional on continued funding.7 Whether stated formally as is the case with NASA or whether simply a practical consequence of funding instability, it is probable that the cooperating parties may not be able to meet their financial commitments at some point during a continuing mission. The mission agreement should address the contractual recourse for the other parties, if one country must withdraw from the project or provide alternative forms of financial participation8. In particular, the participation agreement must address whether the country hosting the physical facilities will continue to provide access to and use of the facilities to the other participants, in the event the host country must withdraw from the agreement.

4.2.4 International Cooperation

Each agency will have concerns about how the management of the Mission Simulator is structured. There are a number of cooperation models that could be followed, each having it benefits and drawbacks.

One cooperation model could be called the “lead agency” model. There are a number of important consequences of this model that would need to be addressed. First, placing lead coordination in one agency may create political tension. For instance, ESA and NASA could independently pursue similar mission simulation facilities, and each may perceive the relinquishment of control as a negative factor. Also, in a “lead agency” model, the non-lead entities often perceive that they do not have as much control over activities as they would like. While this may be tolerable for short periods of time or for smaller projects, the long-term effects on a large project can include resentment of the lead agency or apathy. Finally, there is a risk that any troubles (management, funding, external issues, etc…) that affect the lead agency could compromise the entire effort.

There are certain advantages of the “lead agency” model. For example, it is often difficult to build efficient management structures unless there is an appointed leader from the beginning. Also, the amount of time needed to make decisions is usually much shorter when there is a lead identified for a project. Additionally, the “lead agency” models usually reflect a certain amount of fairness based on the proportion of the contribution of the individual entities. For example, if an agency contributes a large amount of time, work, and money into a project, it seems fair that it should have a larger say in how those resources are used. Finally, if an agency that is not in the lead position decides it can no longer continue, the impacts to the group may not be as large as in the “pure collaboration” model described below.

The “pure collaboration” model is the exact opposite of the “lead agency” model. Entities participating in this model usually feel they are more empowered in making decisions. Also, if one of the large entities that would have taken a lead role in the “lead agency” model runs into internal problems that render it incapable of continuing its participation, the impact on the collective group is lessened. However, this type of model also has its drawbacks. If the management structure is not cleverly constructed, it can become very difficult to determine the appropriate chain of command. In this type of model it can sometimes be extremely arduous to make even simple decisions.

Because of the nature of these projects, it may be useful to use a model that is a compromise between these two. This type of effort will require resources from all over the world. Each agency has its own assets, but there are also other factors. For example, in training for a science mission, it is useful to use analog sites where the environment is similar to the planet’s surface environment, the operations can be conducted in the same manner as on the planet’s surface, and there is an actual scientific value to the analog mission. These types of environments are often geographically distributed around the world. Therefore, further analysis should be done to explore how agencies could share their assets and work in areas outside of their jurisdictional control, while creating an efficient management structure where roles and command structure are clearly defined.

4.11

CASE STUDIES

4.2.5 References

1 See supra at sections 2.4.3, 2.5.4, 2.2.4, and 2.3.3. 2 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.1, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 3 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.10, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 4 See supra at section 3.2.2. 5 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.10.3, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 6 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.10, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 7 This provision states that all promises made by NASA are subject to availability of funds appropriated by Congress. NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.19, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003.

4.3 Case Study B – World Space Observatory

4.3.1 World Space Observatory

Ultraviolet astronomy in space

Astronomers currently have access to data from a number of telescopes, among then are the four Great Observatories: The Hubble Space Telescope (HST), The Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory, The Chandra X-Ray Observatory and The Space Infrared Telescope Facility. Each of these observes the Universe in a different wavelength of light, visible, gamma-ray, x-ray and infrared, respectively.1 At present there is a gap in capability of resources because NASA has no observatory mission dedicated to ultraviolet astronomy. Although the Hubble Space Telescope has ultraviolet capability, there is still sufficient demand for ultraviolet observing capability in space to warrant a dedicated observatory mission in the ultraviolet.

4.12 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

The WSO/UV Mission Concept

The World Space Observatory/Ultra Violet (WSO/UV) is a space mission concept that proposes to fill the gap in facilities dedicated to ultraviolet astronomy in space. The mission concept is developed around a 1.7-m telescope with associated instrumentation to be deployed at the Sun-Earth L2 point. From a technology standpoint, this concept does not require significant new developments. However, the technology challenge arises from the very broad international nature of the mission concept. Unlike many missions that are developed by one, or a few partners, the WSO/UV mission concept is unique in that it proposes areas for international cooperation between space-faring countries and developing countries in all aspects of the mission. Distributing the mission development and mission operations over multiple countries will pose challenges for both developing and developed countries. The WSO/UV has attracted significant interest from the United Nations, as it is perceived to be a mutually beneficial and valid scientific mission for all scientists in the world.2

The WSO mission as defined to date, has the following characteristics: • Telescope: 1.7 m diameter (T-170M to be contributed by Russia); • Spectrograph for the ultraviolet: range 110-340 nm (to be contributed by Germany); • Imaging Wavelength: range 115-340 nm with a quality of 0.1-0.3 arc-seconds (under development in Israel); two imagers in the UV, one for maximum spectral resolution and the other for maximum sensitivity; one imager for the visual domain; • Halo Orbit about Sun-Earth L2 point; • Mission lifetime: 5 years with potential for another 5 years. • Mission Operations distributed among several partner countries; • Scientific Operations distributed over all of the countries involved.

The proposed Sun-Earth L2 orbit has a number of characteristics that make it the preferred orbit. The orbit has minimal station-keeping requirements and hence, minimal operations intervention. The spacecraft does not cross the Earth’s shadow; therefore there are no eclipses and hence high thermal stability. This orbit also offers a relatively low radiation environment as it is well outside the Van Allen belts. 3

International Participation

Some of the countries currently participating in this project are Argentina, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Russia and the United Kingdom. Each of these countries will contribute according to its interests and means. Currently Russia is leading the WSO/UV, and has funding approved for the distributed Phase A study. Russia is also contributing the T-170M telescope with light-weighted mirror, optical bench, and the mission operations. Argentina is considering participation in science operations, and the availability of the Falda de Carmen Antenna for Telemetry Tracking and Command (TT&C). China has funding approved for the Phase A studies for science operations, mission operations and TT&C, and have proposed a launcher contribution. France has a Phase A study proposal submitted for science operations, data distribution, and science instrument participation. Germany is participating in the Phase A study by contributing a spectrograph design and participating in associated science operations. Italy has a Phase A study proposal submitted for science operations, the Fine Guidance System (FGS), integrated On-Board Data Handling / Attitude and Orbit Control System (OBDH/AOCS), and Imaging Detectors. Spain has funding approved for the Phase A study involving filter design, production and qualification, science missions and operations, data distribution, legal and organisational requirements. The United Kingdom has funding approved for the Phase A study participation by the University of Leicester (Department of Physics and Astronomy) in science operations, detectors for spectrograph and optical imager. Ukraine has Phase A study participation approved for science operations, and optical design of the T-170M.

The WSO/UV Implementation Committee (WIC), currently chaired by Russia, directs the development of the project. The WIC is responsible for overseeing and coordinating all the

4.13

CASE STUDIES

international developments needed to make the anticipated launch of WSO/UV possible in 2008.4 Countries and agencies presently represented on the WIC are Argentina, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Baltic-Nordic countries, China, Russia, South Africa, Spain, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Ukraine, ESA, and the United Nations. A National WSO Working Group (NWWG) has been set up in each partner country to coordinate efforts within that country and with other partner nations.5

Historically the operations of an astronomical observatory like this one are divided into two, the mission operations and the scientific operations. The mission operations usually include spacecraft sub-systems, safety and communications, while the scientific operations include the scientific output. Normally two centres are set up for these operations, the mission operation centre and the scientific operations centre. With the proposed WSO/UV distributed operations plan, the new concept of multiple mission and scientific operation centres will be realized. This will present the challenge of minimizing redundancy and keeping the costs low. Other potential challenges include quality control issues, and cooperation and legal issues.

4.3.2 WSO/UV Technology Domains and Sub-Domains Required

The technology surveys described in this report include China, Japan, Russia and the United States. Table 4.8 shows the current technologies, required for the WSO/UV and their associated Technology Domain (TD) and Technology Sub-Domain (TSD) based on ESA’s European Space Technology Master Plan (ESTMP). This table shows the areas where participating countries have proposed contributions, or have funding and approval for contribution. Shading highlights technology areas or specific equipment where Japan and USA could potentially contribute, although they are not at present.

Table 4.8: WSO Technology Domains and Technology Sub-Domains - Country Contributions

LEGEND FUNDED PROPOSED Currently not involved. Potential involvement is proposed by TRACKS

highlighting current missions using technology required by WSO/UV

Attitude Determination and Control System

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other 15 E Sun Sensor - - - - - 15 E Fine Guidance Sensor - - - - Italy (see ref 5) FUSE Argentina 16 A Star Trackers - - - technology (see ref 4,5) 16 A Attitude Anomaly Detector see ref 1,6 - - - - United Kingdom 15 A Reaction Wheels - - - - (Leicester) (see ref 6) 15 A Thruster Control Electronics see ref 1,6 - - - - Failure Detection and Correction 15 E see ref 1,6 - - - - Electronics

15 E Antenna Pointing Control Electronics see ref 1,6 - - - -

4.14 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Telecommunications

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other 26 A 0.8 m High Gain Antenna TBD TBD TBD - TBD 26 A X-band low gain Omni TBD TBD TBD EO-1 TBD 26 A SDST X-up/X-down TBD TBD TBD - TBD 26 A X-band SSPA TBD TBD TBD EO-1 TBD

Instruments

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other IR and X- T-170M Propose to Ray Telescope participate in 16 A Telescope telescope - - (see ref manufacturing technology 1,5) (see ref 7) may apply 16 A Optical Bench See ref 1,6 - - - - Cosmic Spectrograph Origins 16 A UV Spectrometer See ref 1,6 - - Design Spectrograph (see ref 2) (COS), HST

Small detector from "Solar Space 16 A UV Detector See ref 1,6 - HST - Telescope Plan" (see ref 9)

16 A Visual Imager See ref 1,6 - - - - Propose to participate in Germany 16 A HIRDES - - - manufacturing (see ref 2) (see ref 7)

Power

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other 3 A Solar Array Advanced Si - - - - TBD 3 C Power Electronics System TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD United Kingdom 3 A Lithium Ion Batteries - - - - (AEA)

Propulsion

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other Hydrazine 18 A Fuel Tanks Propellant - - - - (see ref 3) see ref 18 A Lines, Fittings, Misc - - - - 1,6,3 see ref 18 A Propellant Isolation Assembly - - - - 1,6,3 see ref 18 A Thrusters - - - - 1,6,3 Proposed alternative 19 G Launcher Soyuz launch vehicle - - - to Soyuz see ref 8)

4.15

CASE STUDIES

Command and Data System

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other France (see ref 5), 9 A Integrated Control and Data System see ref 1,6 - - SOHO (CDHS) Italy (see ref 5)

Structures

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other IRTS/SFU, Great 19 B Primary Structure see ref 1,6 - - Asuka Observatories IRTS/SFU, Great 19 B Secondary Structure see ref 1,6 - - Asuka Observatories IRTS/SFU, Great 19 E Telescope Interface see ref 1,6 - - Asuka Observatories

19 C Solar Array Structure see ref 1,6 - - - -

19 C Antenna Articulation Mechanism see ref 1,6 - - - -

19 E Adaptor, Spacecraft side see ref 1,6 - - - - 19 E Adaptor, Launch vehicle side - - - - TBD

Thermal

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other 20 D Multilayer Insulation TBD TBD - - TBD 16 A Optical Surface Reflectors TBD TBD - - TBD 20 D Heaters/thermostats TBD TBD - - TBD

Ground Station System and Networking

TD TSD COMPONENT Russia China Japan USA Other

50m Antenna with X-band receiver, 34m Argentina 12 A Antennas - antenna with - - (see ref 4) both emitter and receiver (see ref 7)

Plan to set up science Argentina operation (Possible use of 12 B Ground Station - - - centre Falda de Carmen) (see ref (see ref 4) 10,11)

Table 4.8 References 1 http://wso.vilspa.esa.es/ 2 http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/groups/wso_uv/ 3 WSO/UV Pre-Assessment Study Report: CDF-05(A) May 2000 4 http://www.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/wso/ArgentineWSO.html 5 http://www.saao.ac.za/space_science/WSO/GEN-PL-0003-1-4.pdf 6 http://wso.vilspa.esa.es/Conferences/Moscow_2002/index.htm 7 http://wso.vilspa.esa.es/Conferences/Moscow_2002/IV/plan.ppt 8 http://wso.vilspa.esa.es/docs/WCC/MIN/Attachments/WIC-MIN-0005-1-0.PDF 9 http://www.ustc.edu.cn/ch/detail.php?siteid=1&tplset=ustc2&postid=479&keyword=WSO 10 http://www.xssc.ac.cn/news/confdetail.asp?infono=172 11 http://wso.vilspa.esa.es/docs/WCC/MIN/Attachments/WIC-MIN-0005-1-0.PDF

4.16 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

4.3.3 Cooperation Potentials and Legal Aspects

The WSO/UV Operations Concept contemplates mission operations and scientific operations, the latter including both scientific instruments and data.6 As a mission with both space-based and ground- based facilities, the WSO/UV participants face potential liability under the United Nations treaties for space activities and under the laws of the nations with territorial control over the ground facilities. Under the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention, liability to third parties for damage caused by space objects, such as the observatory itself, the launch vehicle, or the component parts of either, will be absolute, whether the damage occurs on Earth or in space.7 If the partner qualifies as a “launching state,” it will make no difference whether the mission partner’s role was minor or without fault.

One of the primary goals of the WSO/UV is to create opportunities for participation “at the frontiers of science, on a sustainable basis and at the national level, by all countries in the world without the need for excessive investment.”8 For many developing nations, this goal cannot be met if the potential liability under the UN treaties is absolute, thereby potentially deterring many of the developing countries, which could benefit from a joint mission of this type. One solution will be to protect developing countries, which bear no fault from liability through contractual provisions. NASA typically requires parties to execute cross-waivers of liability, including liability under the Liability Convention for spaceflight agreements.9 As indicated in section 2.5.9, supra, Japan traditionally resisted such cross-waiver agreements as contrary to public policy and law. In more recent times, however, the two countries have agreed on a general form of cross-waiver that can be applied to numerous projects.10 This ensures that the cooperating parties will not make claims against each other in the event of a mishap. Further, the developing countries could seek limited indemnifications for third-party liability to be provided by the major participants or the participants who caused the damage.

All of our surveyed countries impose some form of control over technology exports.11 Given the scope of our mission, we have not considered the export control regimes of the other participants in the WSO/UV such as: Argentina, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The national export controls laws of all of these countries must be evaluated before undertaking any technology sharing that might constitute an export.

United States export control laws are especially restrictive to China, and these limitations typically pose the greatest hurdle to cooperation. Given the scientific nature of the WSO/UV project and the joint development of technologies that might not be classified as munitions, these controls need not pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation. The scientific instruments could likely be cleared for export beforehand.

Data transfers of scientific results among the cooperating parties are also quite possible.12 For example, data relating to calibration of the observatory, data compiled by the observatory for dissemination and archival, and support operations for data distribution would not appear to create export issues, although, each country would need to make a particular assessment under its national laws.

The WSO/UV project presents the risk that one or more cooperating partners could lose their funding due to economic or political changes. This risk may be particularly acute with developing nations that do not historically have budgets for space activities. The mission agreement must address the contractual recourse for the other parties, if one country must either withdraw from the project or provide alternative forms of financial participation. In particular, the participation agreement must address whether the countries hosting the numerous WSO/UV ground facilities will continue to provide access to and use of the facilities to the other participants should that country have to withdraw due to lack of funding.

4.17

CASE STUDIES

4.3.4 Proposed Cooperation Potentials for United States and Japan

The United States is presently not participating in the WSO/UV project. Within NASA’s Great Observatories program, only the HST is capable of operating in the ultraviolet wavelength domain. NASA’s current plans are to extend the life of the HST to 2010 with one Space Shuttle servicing mission (SM 4) in 2005 or 200613. Note that, approximately one year prior to re-entry, HST will start to encounter longer slew times and degraded science due to the increase in atmospheric density, which will overwhelm the precision control ability of the pointing control system14. NASA’s planned HST successor, The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), will operate in the infrared wavelength domain. The agency plans to launch the JWST the same year the HST is removed from service15. Therefore the gap in facilities dedicated to ultraviolet astronomy in space will remain and this opens up the opportunity for a USA contribution to the WSO/UV project.

Each space agency around the world develops its own scientific missions and goals based on their respective national interests. The HST was a result of international cooperation between both NASA and ESA. NASA led the effort and provided the spacecraft, the telescope, and four of the five original instruments onboard as well as the ground support segment, the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) currently located at the Johns Hopkins University, and the launch vehicle. ESA’s contribution consisted of the solar panels and the fifth instrument along with providing support to the technical personnel at STScI. Long negotiations for cooperation were conducted between NASA and ESA and concluded with a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was signed on October 7, 1977. Overall the European and American astronomers worked well together to make the mission a success.16 The UV detector technology utilized on the HST is one potential area that the United States could contribute to the WSO/UV and in doing so not only obtain a portion of the scientific data, but also aid in the construction of a needed observatory that promotes cooperation between developing and developed countries. The United States would also able to complement the capabilities of its other Great Observatories.

Japan is also currently not a participant in the WSO/UV. Although Japan has no current missions plan to utilize UV telescopes, they do have technologies related to data communication and ground segment technology that could be utilized for the mission. On October 1, 2003 the new Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) will be born and its goals will be to engage in peaceful purposes in academic research in space science technology, fundamental research and development related to space, basic research concerning space scientific technology, and operations of spacecraft development, launch, tracking and operation. Due to the economic situation of Japan and its space budget, they will not be focusing on manned missions.17 They do however have telescopes operating in the IR and X-Ray range, Infrared Telescope Satellite/Space Flyer Unit (IRTS/SFU) and, Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (Asuka), respectively. Their planned missions involving x- ray observatories, includes Astro E2. 18 Being a part of the WSO/UV would provide Japan with a complementary capability in the UV wavelength domain.

Sources http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/daweb/dafield.htm accessed August 27, 2003.

Harvey, B., (2001). Russia in Space. Praxis Publishing Limited; Chichester, United Kingdom.

Russian Space Directory 1999-2000. Sevig Press; Paris, France.

Jane’s Space Directory, 18th Edition, 2002-2003. Jane’s Information Group Limited; Surret, United Kingdom.

“NEXT Testbeds” presentation, 2002. NASA Johnson Space Center.

“INTEGRITY” Presentation, August 20, 2003. Kathy Daues, NASA Johnson Space Center.

Personal Interview, August 28, 2003: Nikolai Tolyarenko, International Space University.

4.18 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

References

1 http://sirtf.caltech.edu/about/greatobs.shtml, 25, August 2003 2 http://www.saao.ac.za/space_science/WSO, 25, August 2003 3 http://www.saao.ac.za/space_science/WSO/GEN-PL-0003-1-4.pdf, 25, August 2003 4 http://wso.vilspa.esa.es/Project/WIC.html, 25 August 2003 5 http://wso.vilspa.esa.es/Project/NWWG.html, 25 August 2003 6 Pascual, P.M.R.: WSO/UV Routine Operations Concept, Addendum to ESA CDR-05(A) UE-CEES PX- 0116000 [CDF-05(C)], p. 3/9, May 5, 2000. 7 United Nations Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liabilitytxt.html, August 21, 2003; United Nations Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article VII, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, August 21, 2003. 8 Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: World Space Observatory: Using Science To Stimulate Sustainable Development - An Appraisal¸ Report on the Eighth United Nations/European Space Agency Workshop on Basic Space Science: Scientific Exploration from Space, hosted by the Institute of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Al al-Bayt University on behalf of the Government of Jordan, March 1999. 9 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, sections 3.5.9, 3.5.9.1, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 10 See supra at section 2.5.9. 11 See supra at section 3.2.2. 12 NASA Office of the General Counsel: Space Act Agreements Manual, Ch. 3 Nonreimbursable and Reimbursable Agreements with Foreign Governments or Governmental Entities, section 3.5.10, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/samanual.html, August 22, 2003. 13 http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/News/Release_03-264.htm, August 28, 2003 14 NASA Hubble Space Telescope End of Mission Options July 21, 2003, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9909, August 28, 2003 15 http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/project/text/JWST_HST_successor.pdf, August 28, 2003 16 US-European Collaboration In Space Science, National Academy Press, pages 39, 44 17 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/japan-nasda-03a.html , August 29, 2003 18 www.seds.org/~spider/oaos/oaos.html, August 29, 2003

4.4 Case Study C - Humanitarian Applications: Enabling Integrated and Coordinated Use of Space Technologies for Refugee Camps

Large-scale refugee movements have become an unfortunate part of global life. Between 20 and 40 million men, women, and children live as refugees,1 often in crowded camps in foreign lands under unsettling conditions. Current space-based technology, while in no position to solve all of the problems faced by refugees, can nevertheless contribute to easing the lives of those forced to live as refugees.

This case study is an attempt to show how the major space powers of the world could work together to assist the many groups aiding refugees worldwide. After a first look at the refugee camp situation, key problem areas and their potential links to space will be identified. Finally, attention will be given to cooperation efforts required for bringing space applications to refugee camps from an economic, policy, legal, and technological standpoint.

4.19

CASE STUDIES

4.4.1 Background

Refugee Camps

Refugees flee their homes, often in an instant, giving up everything and facing uncertain futures in unfamiliar places.2 Many are innocent bystanders caught in regional conflicts or political upheavals.3 Some are powerless victims of natural disasters. All wish to return home permanently, but must seek temporary refuge in the meantime.

Figure 4.1: Refugees under the care of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).1

Whatever the cause of their uprooting, refugees arrive, in small or great numbers, to camps which are often “virtual cities, housing hundreds of thousands of refugees”.4 These temporary homes often begin as concentrations of refugee people, transplanted into new surroundings that are often under- resourced, vulnerable and remote. Refugees and the local communities are strained by a lack of local infrastructure, both in the initial crisis situation or in ensuing phases of camp development.

A “refugee” is a person who: “owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his[/her] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself[/herself] of the protection of his[/her] country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his[/her] former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” -- Geneva Convention [Article 1A(2)], 1951

Where Refugee Needs and Space Capabilities Meet

The average lifespan of a refugee camp is 7 years.5 Some may last up to 25 or 30 years.6 Like any urban environment, refugee camps undergo change over time, affecting multiple dimensions ranging from the structural to the sociocultural. This evolution highlights refugee needs and requirements over the life cycle of the camp. Several of these may be grouped, according to their temporal relation, target users, and application area. In each category, there is opportunity for space applications to serve refugee camps.

4.20 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Camp monitoring

Host Community Refugee Camps

Service delivery Emergency relief Figure 4.2: Temporal diagram showing refugee camp service areas where space applications may be used.

Emergency Relief

Refugee camps are often set up where they are most needed—that is, where the population migration Space technologies are increasingly comes to an end. In emergencies, such as natural assisting humanitarian operations. The disasters or the outbreak of war, there may be no United Nations (UN) has recently used time for planning and directing refugees to an ideal space applications in such situations as the area. Rapid decision-making is key. With no reliable crises in Afghanistan and Timor, and the infrastructure, the rapid, efficient, and safe set-up of civil war in Sierra Leone. refugee camps is contingent upon adequate assessments of the immediate situation. Satellite communications and position-navigation-timing (PNT) can assist in coordinating the supply of food and water, the distribution of staff in the field, and the management of energy resources and construction materials. UNHCR currently employs GPS (Global Positioning System) to track their vehicles.7 These applications may even serve to locate people.8 Worldwide humanitarian efforts can thus be coordinated with space-based services.

Coordinated use of remote sensing (RS) may also help To support emergency relief, space- assess important camp parameters, such as the based services such as positioning- proximity of water sources, elevation, vegetation navigation-timing, remote sensing, and density, and the existence of access routes to remote telecommunications are crucial. areas where camps are located. These then can factor in to the initial establishment of refugee camps.

Emergent health needs must also be addressed; overcrowding, poor water supply and sanitation, lack of food, as well as psychosocial stressors, are important exacerbating factors. Improving camp milieu by space-assisted site selection and coordinated camp set-up may not sufficiently mitigate these problems. Accessible health facilities, as well as referral services, staff training, health surveillance activities, coordinated medication supply and active case finding, can all be implemented with space- based help, with a view to establish a portable, flexible and reliable refugee health care system from the outset. Space applications may assist in the initial situation, easing the barriers of high patient volume, potential security problems, delays in medication supplies and distance to existing services.9

Refugee Camp Monitoring

Over the lifespan of a refugee camp, there will Monitoring of refugee camps requires remote arise the need to detect or anticipate sensing derived data, integrated with Geographic movement of large groups of migrants, to find Information Systems (GIS), to provide value- water and manage resources, and to plan added information. Satellite positioning may evacuations. Detailed information will be also be used for mapping at altitude. required for constructing roads and assessing

4.21

CASE STUDIES

land use and vegetation, whether for mitigating deforestation or for public health. Surveillance may be required to ensure camp and staff security, plan interventions, or simply follow camp development and activities. Space applications such as RS and PNT can provide high resolution data to create accurate maps of the region, which may be followed over time to measure the environmental impact of refugee camps.

Tele-services

Tele-health and Tele-medicine

Health needs of refugee populations may be considered in terms of prevention, diagnosis and treatment. The driving concern in camps is the protection of the health status of the largest number of people possible, with minimal use of scarce medical resources. For health promotion, space-assisted training programs, awareness campaigns and sanitary management may be all that is needed. Outbreak prevention and disease surveillance, for instance for malaria, may require RS help.10 In diagnosing and treating the ill, space applications like satellite communications and PNT may be useful in bringing medical staff, equipment and pharmaceuticals to the camps, as well as specialized remote medical services.

Tele-education

Nearly half the refugee population consists of children.11 For this group, education can be a stabilizing experience. It also represents an opportunity for ensuring protection against potential threats of militarization, prostitution, HIV/AIDS, and land mines. Indeed, once basic support for food, shelter, and health have been assured, education, usually at the elementary level, emerges as a primary concern.12 Specialized skill-building programmes targeting specific groups, such as women, are also a recognized need.13 Satellite-delivered educational programs, whether delivered one-way or in an interactive form to remote, portable stations, may form part of the solution to this problem.

Both tele-education and tele-medicine require solid telecommunications systems; tele-health may involve remote-sensing technologies in exercising its preventive health function.

4.4.2 The Instruments of Change

Considering the Benefits of Space Applications for Refugee Camps

There are many benefits to putting space applications to use for refugee camps. At the individual level, the use of technology to assist in the provision of essential services, such as education and health, can add value in socio-economic realities, life expectancy, and ultimately, in quality of life for the refugees. At the community level, the applications will enhance and direct infrastructure-building and local technical expertise. At the agency or government level, benefits will be created in terms of public relations as well as technology transfer opportunities.

The costs, though considerable, need not be a barrier to making space applications operational in a refugee camp. First, there is the potential for technology use to generate cost savings. Second, technology use can enable expanded or new operations. It must be acknowledged that costs are often an over-riding concern in humanitarian refugee efforts. At the camp level, the budgetary breakdown typically will involve medical and logistic concerns as well as human resources. These depend on accurate pre-installation assessments for projecting camp requirements, such as medical needs, operations kits, office set-up, staff salaries, accommodations and insurance costs.14 Some factors, such as the number of refugees and the duration of the camp itself may be difficult to predict by

4.22 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

conventional means. Space technologies can help to provide services here. Beyond basic camp functioning, organisations such as UNHCR have dedicated funds for running aid programmes targeted towards key problem areas in refugee camps worldwide. These community-based projects operate with budgets ranging from $1,000 to $200,000 per annum.15

Although the use of technology will add to costs in the short term, there will be benefits from multiple and repeated use, and the avoidance of further operational costs associated with inefficient or misdirected interventions. Continued use of space technology in refugee camp related applications will bring more cost-effective technological solutions in the long term.

Realizing the Benefits of Space Applications—A Cooperative Framework

The application of space technologies to the needs of refugee camps bridges different communities with different outlooks. The space community is the data and system provider, and the development community, along with the refugees it strives to aid, are the end user group. To date, cooperation frameworks have emerged either at an intergovernmental level, an international inter-agency level, or at the level of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Many initiatives demonstrate collaborations in space technology application fields relevant to the present case study, but few address the needs of the refugee camps.16 One noteworthy example is the cooperation established during the Rwandan refugee crisis in 1994 between the UNHCR and NASA, when Space Shuttle Endeavour imagery was instrumental in detecting refugee concentrations and in determining the environmental impact of the camps on the Virunga National Park.17

DEVELOPED NATIONS DEVELOPING NATIONS

Space Community

Agencies Industry Intergovernmental Organisations

UN bodies ITU

D evelopment Community

Development banks (WBO), Agencies (USAID, CIDA), Refugee Camps NGOs (MSF, Red Cross, VITA)

International agreements and cooperation frameworks (ISDR, ICSMD)

Figure 4.3: Current relationships between the different players (solid black arrows). Dotted arrows represent relationships to be established. The assumption here is that the host community is a developing nation. This is not always the case, but it remains that these countries will likely require most of the aid available to host nations. CIDA = Canadian International Development Agency; MSF = Médecins Sans Frontières; VITA = Volunteers in Technical Assistance; WBO = World Bank Organisation.

4.23

CASE STUDIES

In the developed world, a cooperation framework has been realized among space agencies through the establishment of joint projects and the participation in various workshops and fora. Developments such as the International Charter “Space and Major Disasters”18 (ICSMD) and the ENVIREF project (Environmental Monitoring of Refugee Camps using High-Resolution Satellite Images)19 are important for rapidly mobilizing the availability of satellite information at times of disaster. Equally, the UN International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) and its successor, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) has shifted the policy emphasis from post- disaster relief towards a more proactive approach of disaster mitigation and has started developing a process for a continuous global review of disaster reduction initiatives.20

Responding to humanitarian relief needs in developing countries constitutes is arduous, given the chronic nature of the crisis situation and the lack of basic information. One limitation to international collaborative efforts for refugee camp monitoring is the inability to access space-enhanced cartographic information by the countries hosting refugee camps on a timely basis.

Usually, the lack of coordination between various government agencies, NGOs and international organisations impedes emergency responses. Additionally, local authorities are often reluctant to use space-based technologies because administrators and authority figures may not have any expertise in matters of disaster management. Funding is another important aspect to be taken into consideration when endeavouring to make space applications operational. Finally, political and cultural sensitivities must be acknowledged both from the data provider and the end user perspectives.

Cooperation efforts between development-oriented NGOs and local governments remain key to the successful operation of a refugee camp. By introducing common use of space in these situations, further partnership with the space community will be necessary for coordinated use of space applications in refugee camps. The following are potential solutions: Establishment of an international forum, similar to EUFOREO21, to facilitate collaboration between the space community & NGOs; The Disaster Charter should be expanded to include additional satellite providers/end users and cover further humanitarian crises; Self-assessment of both national and international capacities in risk awareness and disaster mitigation through space-based technologies; Standardisation of information products and metadata in order to be able to combine different information sources in a coherent way; Establishment of a “clearinghouse” of RS-generated information products and metadata to improve the availability of information, under supportive political/legal circumstances; Further development of the Open GIS Consortium22 or the UN Geographic Information Networking Group for rapid electronic access to the data; consideration industry-initiated projects, such as Rapid Information Support for Humanitarian Action (RISHA);23 Creation of a virtual processing centre for satellite-generated data, much like the UN-sponsored Virtual On-site Operations Coordination Centre (OSOCC) used for Emergency Relief situations24 and the Geographic Information and Mapping Unit (GIMU) sponsored by UNHCR; Expansion of the European GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) as a basis for top-level research and operational information services for humanitarian relief & disaster mitigation.

4.24 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

Solidifying the Benefits of Space Applications Through Legal Means

Aside from traditional liability aspects of space mission operations,25 the proposal to provide ground- based humanitarian aid to refugee camps could create legal issues if the space agencies do not work within the legal structures of the country hosting the refugees. That host country might view the space activities as infringing on its sovereign rights and could object to any interference with its treatment of refugees in its territory.

Some legal issues to be addressed: • Humanitarian aid is governed by the UN conventions and protocols relating to refugees and victims of war.26 This includes the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and the Protocols Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non- International Armed Conflicts.27 The host state must approve the proposed work and must make a formal determination of refugee status. Any regional agreements or national laws pertaining to the host country must be followed. • The mission participants should agree on the size and condition of the refugee camps that will trigger a viable request for assistance. Determining these conditions in advance will reduce potential conflict among the partners about priorities and will provide guidance to developing communities or host countries that wish to request assistance. • The mission agreement must specify the length of time that aid will be provided to a given refugee camp. When the conditions in the refugee camp reach levels similar to the general population of the host country or at some earlier-specified time, then there should be a mechanism for terminating assistance to ensure that resources are allocated to areas most in need. • Instruments such as the 1998 Tampere Convention for the Use of Telecommunications for the Mitigation of Disasters may ease the use of space technologies for humanitarian work.28 The Missile Technology Control Regime and the Wassenaar Arrangement also cover some of the technologies required for these applications. The 1986 Principles Relating to Remote Sensing are another important reference.29 Continued international legal support of cooperative measures and facilitation of cross-border technology utilisation and data-sharing are necessary.30

Figure 4.4. Current and projected technological competency domains. Underlined countries have relevant examples of space technologies listed in the Appendix (Mission and Technology Requirements Tables). ICSMD = International Charter for Space and Major Disasters. Note that of all countries surveyed, only the US (in the form of NOAA) has signed on to this international instrument.

4.25

CASE STUDIES

Cooperative Innovation Opportunities

Technological Innovation

Refugee camps can benefit from high-resolution imaging. Indeed, RS systems are currently being developed by the space industry for operation on low cost micro satellites. In this context, the development of a micro satellite system with high resolution stereoscopic imaging capabilities may pose an interesting innovation challenge.

An example of a high resolution system on a micro satellite platform is the Multi-Spectral High Resolution Sensor “MSRS”, aboard DIAMANT. This system, currently under development, can be regarded as a prototype for future low cost, compact remote sensing systems.31 MSRS provides 12 spectral bands in the visible/near infrared region and a spatial resolution down to 5 m at 26 km swath, assuming an 670 km LEO (low-Earth orbit). Weighing only 64kg, MRSR is tailored for a micro satellite. A planned constellation of up to 6 satellites in orbit will allow this particular system to meet user requirements for innovative geoinformation such as vegetation, water bodies, urban structure, and land cover. Both micro satellite and payload aim to maximize data quality at minimum cost, with high system viability.

The most important example of micro satellite technology at work is the Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC). The DMC is a constellation of micro satellites in LEO designed to provide imaging for rapid response disaster monitoring. The DMC incorporates highly capable 100-kg micro satellites fitted with multispectral imaging functions at a fraction of the cost of conventional systems. Each member country (Algeria, China, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, UK, Vietnam) has purchased one of the seven micro satellites, and data gathered by the entire constellation are available to all partners. Both the component satellites themselves and the ground station have been developed under guidance of Surrey Satellite Technologies Ltd (UK), with active country participation.32 This model of cooperation, with considerable transfer of space technology know-how, has proven to be very successful. It is anticipated to be fully functional by the year’s end: a mere four years after inception.33

Operational Innovation

Applicable telecommunications technologies are mature and readily available. Nevertheless the application of VSATs (Very Small aperture Terminals) in refugee camps can be considered novel from an operational standpoint. The first such use occurred in 1994 in Rwanda, when the UNHCR deployed VSATs to cope with the increased volume of voice, data and fax communications following disruption of high-frequency radio transmission services. There, VSAT satellite links provided 8 simultaneous communication channels which relieved the congestion that the prior installation of multiple Inmarsat satellite telephones could not. UNHCR currently uses at least 20 VSATs in their operations.34 More routine use of well-placed VSATs by all development agencies may be an innovative measure.

Innovative integration of space-based technologies with ground systems is another option. In WIDER (WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) In Disaster and Emergency Response), Ericsson uses off-the- shelf components to interconnect access points for several ground-based relief organisations, and to connect them to local and international PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) via a satellite bridge. For worldwide connectivity, WIDER is designed to have the flexibility to connect through VSAT, Inmarsat, Microwave, or self-healing wireless infrastructure nodes.35

Novel Applications of Space Technologies

Innovation may also occur when space technologies are adapted to ground use. The Joint Water Recycling Project between NASA and Texas Tech University is one such example. 36 Poor, large, isolated communities known as Colonias, near the United States’ border with Mexico, are the beneficiaries of this project. The area lacks adequate water and wastewater services, as well as

4.26 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

infrastructure.37 This has significant public health implications, and to some level parallels the refugee camp situation. The purpose of this project is two-fold: to marry life-support technologies developed by NASA with practical and low-cost water recovery solutions for the Colonias (construction of a complete system, with capacity to treat 650 gallons of domestic wastewater per day, costs nearly $7,00038), and to educate the public on water reuse.39 A pilot wastewater treatment and reuse system has been implemented, in which wastewater is fed through a specialized wetland system where it undergoes chemical processing for water reuse. The system is effective, simple, energy efficient, and also socioculturally acceptable.40

Conclusions

It is feasible for space applications to contribute to resolving refugee camp problems. Given the proper international politico-legal context, this can be achieved through cooperative initiatives by space, development, and intergovernmental agencies. The challenge now remains for the space powers of the world to bring their innovation and capabilities in support to the refugee situation.

Although the use of space applications in refugee camps may engender tension with the host community in the initial stages, space applications in this situation must be taken as an exercise in technology demonstration and proof of concept. Space assets used in the host community may continue to provide services even after ground development teams leave. Successful cooperation among the major space powers to bring space applications to refugee camps will provide immediate relief to the refugees and immediate political benefit. But the real return for reaching out to the developing world may be immeasurable.

To implement these proposals, funding must be secured, as well as firm institutional commitment. To make space applications operational in refugee camps, education and training is essential.41 An integrated and coordinated approach is recommended. Finally, it is our belief that this large-scale problem merits further study in a future ISU Team Project.

4.4.3 Summary

The problems encountered by refugee camps are multiple. Space applications may be used in some areas to increase the efficiency and safety of ground-based humanitarian work. These include emergency relief, camp monitoring, and tele-service provision. Remote sensing, positioning- navigation-timing, and satellite telecommunications are application domains where space technologies have already contributed to disaster relief efforts. Several international instruments and implementation bodies exist to support this: the International Charter for Space and Major Disasters, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites, to name a few. However, none of these include refugee camps and humanitarian disasters within their scope. In order to apply those space-based technologies and application areas for refugee camps, there must be coordination among space agencies, relief agencies, and relevant inter-governmental bodies, such as the United Nations. For current activities to be expanded, several measures must be taken. The first is to ensure an international forum within which the various players –space community, development community, and host community– may interact. Inter-agency links can thus be strengthened. The second is to create an implementation instrument, or else to expand the current Disaster Charter to include humanitarian disasters. The third is to establish support capacity for the coordination and integration of space applications relevant to refugee camps. This may take the form of a specialised office within a relevant United Nations agency. Frameworks for cooperation, both legal and political, already exist. These may be broadened, so that collaborative technology development may occur in order to enable novel space applications to come in service of refugee camps.

4.27

CASE STUDIES

References

1 This figure varies according to the reference source and the definition applied to the term “refugee”. UNHCR. Refugee projects around the world that need your support. Geneva, Switzerland: March 1999, p.1. Also available at: http://www.unhcr.ch. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., p.5. According the UNHCR, nearly 80% of Burundian refugees are women, children, or elderly people. 4 Ibid., p.1. 5 Sorid, Daniel. “Satellites Find A Home For the Homeless”, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/enviref_990923.html. Sept. 23, 1999. 6 Such long-term camps exist in Pakistan. Personal communications with Mr. Andreas Koutepas, Logistics, Médecins Sans Frontières (Greece). Aug. 26, 2003. 7 “UNHCR Uses Satellites (and Windmills) to Get Food and Assistance Where It’s Needed”, http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/wtd/1997/documents/feat3.html. Aug. 30, 2003. 8 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. “United Nations coordination of outer space activities”, http://www.unoosa.unvienna.org/reports/wssdpub/iam/page9.html. Aug. 28, 2003. 9 Médecins Sans Frontières. Refugee Health: An Approach to Emergency Situations: “Health Care in the Emergency Phase”. Macmillan, 1997. Available at http://www.msf.ca/refugeecamp/learnmore/clinic/fieldguide.htm. 10 ISU, 2002 SSP. HI-STAR: Health Improvements Through Space Technologies and Resources. 11 UNHCR. Refugee projects around the world that need your support. Geneva, Switzerland: March 1999, p.8. 12 Ibid., p.10-11. Note that inadequate educational infrastructure is a frequent barrier. 13 Ibid., p.19. Training can involve dressmaking, hairdressing, secretarial work, carpentry, and birthing assistance. 14 Personal communications with Marili Vrodissi, Financial Operations, and Andreas Koutepas, Logistics, Médecins Sans Frontières (Greece). Aug. 26-27, 2003. 15UNHCR. Refugee projects around the world that need your support. Geneva, Switzerland: March 1999, pp.7-9. 16 The German Space Agency DLR has established partnerships worldwide in telematic applications for health care (see http://tm.tm.conae.gov.ar/argonauta/partners.html). In education, there is the European Union Multimedia Teleschool project (see http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/docs/intcoop/g8/IS_conf_95_fact_sheets.doc), and the IECAT project in collaboration with the US. 17 Mountains Gorilla Protection: A Geomatics Approach, “Gorillas in the data base”, http://www.informatics.org/gorilla/digmaps.html. Aug. 27, 2003. 18 Initiated by Austria, ESA, and CNES at UNISPACE III in 1999. Later joined by the Canadian Space Agency, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the Indian Space Research Organisation, and most recently by the Argentinian Comision Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (see http://www.disasterscharter.org/main_e.html) 19 ENVIREF is a shared cost project supported by the European Commission, the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway, the Swedish Space Corporation, Infocarto in Spain as well as relief agencies like the UNHCR, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Doctors without Borders and Oxfam UK. It aims “to develop and evaluate new and improved products and methods from high-resolution earth observation (EO) satellite images for application and exploitation in humanitarian relief operations”. 20 http://www.unisdr.org/unisdr/chapter3.htm, Ch. 3.1; http://www.unisdr.org/unisdr/chapter7.htm. Aug. 27, 2003. 21 EUFOREO (EU Forum on Earth Observation Use for Environment and Security) is a thematic network aiming to demonstrate a European Forum linking major space agencies, research centers, service providers, manufacturers and users. http://www.dfd.dlr.de/dfd/workshop/bruessel/Conclusion- fin.pdf. Aug. 28, 2003.

4.28 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

22 The Open GIS Consortium is an international industry consortium (258 companies, government agencies and universities) developing publicly available geoprocessing specifications, http://www.opengis.org/. Aug. 27, 2003. 23 http://intelligence.jrc.cec.eu.int/risha/workshop/conclusions.htm. Aug. 27, 2003. 24 http://www.reliefweb.int/VirtualOSOCC. Aug. 26, 2003. 25 UN Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liabilitytxt.html, Aug. 21, 2003; UN Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article VII, 1967, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf, Aug. 21, 2003. 26 Joint Position on the Harmonized Application of the Definition of the Term “Refugee” in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention of 28 Jul. 1951, http://www.refugeecaselaw.org/Refugee/euj.htm, Aug. 22, 2003; UNHCR: Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention; 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, paras. 164-66, HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1, re-edited Jan. 1992. 27 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Adopted on Aug. 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm, Aug. 27, 2003; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocols I and II), 1977, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/94.htm, Aug. 27, 2003. 28 Mobile Communications for Emergencies and Disaster Recovery in Developing Countries, 2003. Available at: http://lcawww.epfl.ch/panchard/Files/Docs/Article.pdf. 29 Further details may be found in Section 3.2.2, “International Legal Framework of Technology Control”. 30 “Fighting the Good Fight: The Global VSAT Forum Crusade”. http://www.gvf.org/solutions/index.cfm?fuseaction=satcom1, Aug. 29,2003 31 http://www.ohb-system.de/Satellites/Studies/EarthObservation/diamant.html. Aug. 28, 2003. 32 http://www.sstl.co.uk. Aug. 29, 2003. 33 ISU 2002 SSP. HI-STAR: Health Improvements Through Space Technologies and Resources. p. 168. 34 http://www.gvf.org/solutions/index.cfm?fuseaction=satcoml. Aug. 29, 2003. 35 Mobile Communications for Emergencies and Disaster Recovery in Developing Countries, 2003. Available at: http://lcawww.epfl.ch/panchard/Files/Docs/Article.pdf. 36 The collaboration is in fact between NASA Johnson Space Center’s Crew and Thermal Systems Division and Texas Tech University’s Water Resources Center. 37 Texas Tech University. “Plant Research in the EDU, Water Reuse/Recycling, and Improvements in Human Centered Computing”, Final Report submitted to NASA JSC, December 2002. 38 Ibid. 39 Henninger, DL. “Texas Water Foundation Board of Directors Quarterly Meeting Presentation on the Joint Water Recycling Project”. Presented at UT – Brownsville, May 24, 2002. 40 Ibid. 41 United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Report on the United Nations/International Astronautical Federation Workshop on Making Space Applications Operational: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Development, Albi (France), Sept. 27-29, 2001.

4.29

International Space University, SSP03

5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The TRACKS to Space pilot project was constrained by both time and the need to perform the surveys from a location outside of the space agencies. As indicated below, these constraints affected the results of our surveys, but they also gave guidance to how this pilot project may best be continued and made operational.

More significant, despite these constraints, our team makes concrete findings regarding the survey results and the case studies. We present these below, along with recommendations for maximizing the potential for cooperative technology sharing.

5.2 Main Findings

From the country survey and the case studies, TRACKS to Space found the following:

1. Utilizing a “mission approach” allowed the team to define technology requirements with relative ease, but this approach risks omitting the most innovative R&D technologies. We identified planned missions within each country and allowed this approach to drive our technology mapping. Within the mission context, it was feasible to determine the technology requirements. However, this approach forced us to exclude technologies that were not yet part of a planned mission, such as R&D developed by commercial entities or by the agencies through their innovation processes. It also omits potential spin-in or spin-off technology development.

2. Technology information for China, Japan, and Russia cannot reliably be obtained in English using off-location, Internet sources. The TRACKS to Space team benefited greatly by having native Chinese, Japanese, and Russian participants, who could translate non-English documents about their countries’ space activities and technologies and who could draw on personal contacts within the relevant agencies. Otherwise, information about space technologies seldom could be found in English and, when found, was often out-dated. Acquiring reliable data in English imposes additional delay and cost, highlighting the need for an intercultural survey team.

3. Budget and funding information is largely unavailable for R&D technologies. The level of budget and funding information varies by country and by level of specificity. Among the countries, NASA’s budget and funding information was the most complete due to the public nature of the Congressional appropriation process. In almost all instances, this agency’s funding information could be allocated to the mission level, but we could not allocate funding to the technology level. For the other countries, agency budgeting and funding was usually available, but it was unusual to find public information about the allocation of monies to the mission or technology levels.

4. Information about Earth observation and space sciences technologies is more available than other space technologies. Perhaps due to the global importance of Earth observation and space sciences and the general acceptance that data from these missions should be freely shared, the team found that the technologies for these missions were better documented in public sources than any other mission type. We note, however, that this creates a bias in our survey. As indicated in section 2.6.3, our survey shows a predominance of Earth observation and space sciences missions in total number, but this is not a valid indicator of the relative importance of the missions to the countries.

5. The countries exercise varying degrees of control over the R&D innovation processes. All of the surveyed countries emphasize R&D innovation in collaboration with research institutions, academia, and industry, but each country exercises different degrees of control over that process.

5.1

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

China approaches innovation through the agency’s identification of R&D requirements, with requests for proposals. Consistent with a larger national plan, Japan seeks R&D through stimulation of private industry and academia. The Russian Federation has the unique position of being both a supplier and a customer, which affects its approach for innovation. Finally, subject to Congressional authorization and appropriation, NASA encourages academia and private industry to develop new technologies independent of current R&D requirements, though it also announces its technologies requirements. This pilot project was too limited in scope to assess whether the degree of governmental control affects the volume and quality of innovation.

6. The “Risk of First Use” imposes barriers to development of technologies. One goal of TRACKS to Space was to create a technology map to reveal where the surveyed countries could share their capabilities and fill technological gaps on international projects. Instead, we found a continued reluctance in the space community to use the innovative technologies in identifiable space-based missions. The risk of being the first to use untested technologies in space is deemed too high. By contrast, technology demonstrations or ground-based simulations provide better opportunities to try the innovative technologies under reduced-risk scenarios.

7. International cooperation most often occurs at the mission level, which limits effective technology development. Our surveyed countries seemed most willing to cooperate on space projects at a mission level, involving barter agreements for technology contributions. Though interface and safety information will routinely be exchanged to ensure that each partner’s contributions can be integrated, direct technology transfers are avoided. Innovative technology development will not be stimulated by a process in which each partner’s contribution stands alone.

8. Restrictive export controls inhibit international cooperation and development of innovative space technologies. The countries’ export controls, particularly the restrictive regulation of the United States, inhibit successful collaboration on space projects. If technology cannot be shared, innovation is stifled. Space projects become more difficult, costly, and slow, and there become little incentive for cooperation.

9. Mission funding on an international project presents both opportunities and barriers for success. An obvious goal for collaboration on missions is a reduction in each partner’s financial commitment. Cooperation also reduces the risk that the withdrawal of one partner will devastate the project financially. Nonetheless, we found that administrative and coordination costs will increase as partners are added, sometimes offsetting the financial gain from the collaboration. The security of each agency’s financial contribution may also be sufficiently tenuous to present a barrier to cooperation. Funding and budget cycles vary among the countries, and some countries – the United States, in particular – insist on contractual provisions to allow termination if funding is lost. Financial risks can seldom be eliminated entirely, and the partners must be tolerant of these risks unless each wishes to proceed alone.

10. Political motivations drive the success of international cooperation. More than any other factor, political motivations will determine whether cooperation on international projects will succeed. Technological, cultural, and economic barriers typically can be overcome, if the political climate is favorable. The barriers posed by export controls likewise can be lowered, if political motivations are high enough, although the process for changing the legal framework can be slow. In our case studies, we found specifically that even though involving numerous countries in a project will increase administrative costs and non-proliferation concerns, these high-profile or large-scale projects politically motivate countries to find cooperation potential.

11. Decision-support tools can be used to assess the desirability of cooperative programmes. In our case study on mission simulators, we utilised a decision-support tool to assess the alternatives for international cooperation on this space project. The user may modify the factors used in the assessment tool to accord with the user’s experience and requirements. With the benefit of tools such as this, a space agency may consider international cooperation potentials thoughtfully and rationally.

5.2 International Space University, SSP03

TRACKS TO SPACE

12. Developing nations can be involved most feasibly in Earth observation and space sciences missions. Because space sciences and civilian Earth observation missions have lower national security concerns and higher global benefits, the major space players are more willing to involve developing nations in a scientific mission. Sharing of cost, technologies, and data can all be tailored to the contributions of the developing nation. The primary deterrent to cooperation is the legal liability associated with space-based missions. International treaties and national laws put developing nations at equal risk with the major space contributors. Without negotiated risk allocation among all of the partners, the liability risk may be too high for developing nations to participate.

13. Application of space technologies to humanitarian efforts requires the commitment of the development sector. Our case study on humanitarian aid for refugees revealed how acutely space applications depend on commitment by development sectors. For relief efforts and other projects that are not profit-motivated, the development community may be reluctant to rely on space applications, viewing them to be too risky or costly. The space partners must be prepared to overcome these perceptions through a compelling campaign to demonstrate the reliability and affordability of space applications.

5.3 Recommendations

The primary recommendation of TRACKS to Space is that the work of the pilot project should be continued and developed into a functional, inter-agency space technology forum. More specifically, we suggest: 1. Technology Requirements Tables and Mission Tables should be expanded and completed. In this pilot project, we were limited in our scope by the agencies, missions, and technologies that could be surveyed. The Technology Requirements Tables and Mission Tables should be expanded beyond the scope of our project and should be verified by sources within the relevant agencies. 2. Results of the survey should be made available to other agencies. Although this project was performed for, and at the request of ESA, the results should be made available to agencies within the surveyed countries and other interested space agencies. Cooperation is best stimulated when agencies can work from a common understanding, and this report offers a first step in that regard. 3. The agencies should create an interagency forum for space technology mapping. We found in our survey that countries were mapping their own capabilities, but we could not acquire access to those technology maps. If a space technology forum existed among interested space agencies (such as the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee or the Inter- Agency Cooperation Group), then each agency could share its own technology map. Then, a multi-agency technology map could be formulated, using common templates and definitions, on a common platform such as the Internet. The data collected in this pilot project could serve as the point of departure for such an initiative. 4. The multi-agency technology map should be updated continuously. As we found in our survey, information about R&D technologies and innovations becomes stale rapidly. The mapping tool developed by ESA and used in this pilot project can only be effective with a commitment by each agency to keep the information current. 5. The agencies should use the space technology forum to stimulate technological innovation. The agencies should work within the space technology forum to identify potentials for international cooperation, not only at the mission level, but also at the technology level. Technology gaps can be filled more easily in this cooperative context and the true benefits of international collaboration can be realized.

TRACKS to Space was privileged to participate in this pilot project on behalf of ESA. Because we believe that all nations stand to benefit from international cooperation in space technology, we urge you to continue the process of technology research and cooperative knowledge sharing.

5.3

International Space University, SSP03

APPENDICES

A.1

APPENDIX CHINA MISSION TABLES CHINA - MISSION TABLE

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME US$ 10 Small satellite; it will carry two Astronomy millions, optical telescopes and an X-ray -2005 No Information found Observatory China telescope government http://www.astronautix.com/cr Payload 6-8kW, 600-800kg, aft/dfh4.htm Has signed S-, C- and Ku-bands, direct First High Capacity http://fpeng.peopledaily.com. two satellite broadcasting system without No Chinese cn/200307/03/eng20030703_ contracts DFH-4 ground station rebroadcast, long-2005 Information Telecommunications 119402.shtml with term geo-synchronous found satellite http://www.alcatel.com/space APSTAR and communications, 50 /programmes/telecom/teleco SINOSAT transponders, 15 years life span mpayloads.htm The constellation of eight advanced satellites, including Disaster Monitoring Disaster To monitor Environmental four 400 kg optical satellites and No No Constellation, monitoring and disaster warning four 700 kg radar satellites, Information Information http://www.astronautix.com/cr satellite network would orbit in two planes to found found aft/disation.htm provide round-the-clock monitoring. To detect and research the Earth-time-space change A cooperation mission with ESA, A Double - rule and space magnetic there are 4 satellites, 2 of them cooperation ESA and Satellite storm between the middle are manufactured by china. 2001-2004 Website mission CNSA Detection field of near-earth space Satellite mass: 330kg, Lager between ESA environment and the ellipse orbit, spinning. and CNSA articles

In phase 1 1.Global sounding of three- experiment dimensional atmospheric al FY-3A thermal and moisture structures, would be China and cloud and precipitation launched Meteoro- parameters in order to support in late logical global numerical weather 2004 or Adminis- forecast early 2005 To reemplace the polar- tration, US$ 2.Global imaging to monitor and FY-3B http://www.alcatel.com/space FY-3 series orbiting sun synchronous 626 million large-scale meteorological and in 2006. In /programmes/telecom/teleco FY-1C1 (for hydrological disasters, and phase 2 mpayloads.htm meteoro- biosphere and environment operational logical anomalies. FY-3C satellites 3.Deriving important geophysical would be 2001-2010) parameters to support research launched on global and regional climate in 2008 change and FY-3D in 2010.

FY-4 will be a three-axis Wei Long: China Moves stabilized satellite as opposed to Towards New Generation the spin-stabilized satellites of Metsats,http://www.spacedail FY-4 series 2004-2010 $121 million the FY-2 series. Like its sister y.com/news/china- craft FY-3, FY-4 will carry 01zg.htmlBeijing - June 11, multiple payloads on board 2001

To gather data on marine wind setup, marine surface State height and the temperature http://english.peopledaily.co Marine HY-2 Series of seawater along with Microwave remote sensor 2001-2005 m.cn/200205/17/eng2002051 Adminis- precision aero marine 7_95891.shtml tration forecasts for prevention and relief of disaster. China's first solid propellant orbital launch vehicle was capable of putting 100 kg into Chinese Defense Today Kaituozhe- polar orbits. Total Mass: 20,000 http://www.sinodefence.com/ 1KT Series A small all-solid orbital kg. Core Diameter: 2.00 m. Commercial 2000-2005 space/vehicle/kt1.asp;http://w (Small Solid launch vehicle. Total Length: 18.00 m. This Mission ww.astronautix.com/lvs/kt1.ht LV's) launch vehicle could be m; launched with 20 hours from a fixed launch pad or mobile launch vehicle.

A.1 APPENDIX CHINA MISSION TABLES

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME Four phases: Phase 1, by 2005: Lunar flyby or orbiting satellite missions, perhaps using the DFH-3 bus. Phase 2, by 2010: unmanned Lunar Mainly soft-landing missions. http://fpeng.peopledaily.com. mission: Funded by To explore the Moon Phase 3, by 2020: Robotic 2003-2030 cn/200307/03/eng20030703_ Change Govern- exploration using surface rovers. 119402.shtml program ment Phase 4, by 2030: Lunar sample return missions. Only after 2030 would manned flights and construction of a lunar base begin. Carrying out engineering studies in aerospace medicine aerospace life science, developing equipment for aerospace remote-sensing and aerospace scientific experiments. To realize manned Phase1: manned spaceship. 2003 spaceflight and establish Mass: 7,800 kg. Perigee: 374 (end Mainly Manned http://www.astronautix.com/cr an initially complete R&D km. Apogee: 379 km. Inclination: October, funded by Spaceflight aft/dfh4.htm and testing system for 42.4 deg. After three further beginning government manned space projects. unmanned tests, the first November) manned flight was set for late 2003. In the second phase spacewalks, rendezvous and docking tests would be conducted. A space laboratory would be orbited Yihua Tang, Xiaojun Wang, Developing a new generation of Tangming Cheng, The expendable launch vehicles Sketch of a New Generation using non-toxic, high- Launch Vehicle of Long- performance propellants (1,200 New launch Mainly March Family, "International kN thrust LOX/Kerosene vehiclesCZ-5 To upgrade China's launch Funded by Astronautical Congress, engines and 500 kN thrust 2008 Series(Large vehicles Govern- 2002", IAC-02-V.1.04. LOX/LH2 engines) with lower ModernLV's) ment http://www.friends- operating costs partners.org/partners/mwade/ CZ-5 Family launch lvs/chianglv.htm capacity:LEO up to 25 ton, GTO http://www.sinodefence.com/ 1.5-14 ton space/vehicle/cz5.asp 1.Ability to forecast weather to http://english.peopledaily.co Olympic areas as small as one km2 m.cn/200205/14/eng2002051 No Games Weather forecasting with 2.Short range and instant severe 4_95624.shtmlhttp://www.chi 2005-2008 Information weather high precision weather forecast naembassy.org.pl/pol/43289. found monitoring 3.Analysis of impacts of weather htmlhttp://www.16da.org.cn/e conditions on sports games nglish/2001/Aug/17706.htm

To launch two small satellites on top of one rocket by the end of 2003. Made by The first one is an http://www.fas.org/spp/starwa Tsinghua engineering test satellite rs/congress/2000_h/00-07- University developed by Tsinghua No 19fisher.htmlhttp://www.astro Space OlympicSat 1 University. The another Two nano satellites, total mass 2003 Information nautix.com/craft/olyicsat.htm Center, & 2 (THNS-1) one is a specially designed 100 kg found http://www.geocities.com/Cap student educational satellite, which eCanaveral/launchpad/1921/ experiments, will be used by teenagers news.htm partly used all over China for satellite for education observation and Earth observation in next two years.

A.2 APPENDIX CHINA MISSION TABLES

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME

Downlink data from ROCSAT-2 at a high rate up to 320 Mbps; Weight :~764kg (with payload and fuel); Shape: Hexahedron; height 2.4m, outer diameter To develop a satellite for Mainly about 1.6m (before opening the Earth remote sensing and Funded by http://www.nspo.gov.tw/e50/h ROCSAT-2 solar array); Orbit: 891km 2003 for observing upper Governmen ome/left..html altitude, sun synchronized orbit atmospheric lightning. t passing through Taiwan twice daily; Remote sensing ground resolution:2 m for black and white images, and 8 m for color images; Mission life:> 5 years.

Launch a constellation of six micro-satellites to collect atmospheric remote sensing data for monitoring weather and To establish a Mainly ROCSAT- conducting climate, ionosphere, Constellation Observing Funded by http://www.nspo.gov.tw/e50/h 3/COSMIC and gravity research. Weight: 2002-2008 System for Meteorology, Govern- ome/left..html Program ~65kg (with payload and fuel for Ionosphere and Climate ment each satellite; Shape: Disc- shape; Orbit: 700-800km altitude, circular, inclination 72 degree; Design life: > 5 years. A satellite with 2-ton-weight, http://english.peopledaily.co To Focus on diversification onboard a 100-cm optical lens m.cn/200203/11/eng2002031 Space Solar of the solar magnetic field, US$ 200M, and a group of X-ray equipped 2001-2005 1_91896.shtmlhttp://www.spa Telescope as well as solar activities CAS telescopes on it. Service term 3- ce.com/news/china_telescop and the spaceclimate. 5 years. e.html 1) 150 kg remote sensing satellite; 2) 600 km orbit to map the Earth and monitor natural disasters; 3) The satellite uses integrated design and No Governmen Tansou-1 First micro satellite in http://www.spacedaily.com/ne manufacturing technologies, and Information t and (TS-1) China ws/china-00zzq.html carries a linear array of three found University CCD survey cameras, which will transmit images with a resolution of 10 m and an image swath of 120 km wide

Measuring the situation of visible spectrum of Sun;Certifying the possibility of micro-mechanical electronic system in space; Mass: ~1kg, orbit: 600-650 km, 97 degree inclination; a size of 10cm x 10cm x 10cm and contains a micro-spectrometer payload. The micro- http://www.nspo.gov.tw/e50/ spectrometer adapts the MEMS Mainly To develop a Micro- home/left..html YAMSAT technology to measure the 2003 funded by satellite http://www.nspo.gov.tw/eewe sunlight scattering spectrum government b/ yamsat/introduction.htm from the atmosphere. YamSat will be controlled by an 80C52 micro-controller with the B-Dot attitude control mechanism and the amateur-band communications link. Its power subsystem consists of surface- mounted GaAs/Si solar cells and rechargeable batteries.

ZY-1 series To monitor land resource Chinese Defence China Brazil The Earth observation payload changes of China and No Today::CBERS/ZY-1 Earth Earth includes three primary sensors: Brazil, renewing the two 1999-2010 Information Resources Satellite, Resources CCD Camera, IR Multi-Spectral countries' national land found http://www.sinodefence.com/ Satellite Scanner, Wide-Field Imager use map every year space/spacecraft/zy1.asp (CBERS)

A.3 APPENDIX CHINA MISSION TABLES

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME Used for territorial and resources surveying, Chinese Defence Today :: ZY environment monitoring and No Civilian remote sensing 2 Earth Resources Satellite, ZY-2 series protection, city planning, crop 2000-2010 Information satellite http://www.sinodefence.com/ yield assessment, disaster found space/spacecraft/zy2.asp monitoring, and space science experimentation

A.4 APPENDIX CHINA TECHNOLOGY TABLE

CHINA - TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME COOPERATION PRIME OTHER TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME COMMENTS CONTRACTOR COMMENTS Microwave Power Modules (MPM): High integration level and small footprint industry-wide. All major bus systems can be accommodated. Flexible power interface. Optimized designs for various output powers. The MPM is a hybrid device that incorporates a solid-state driver, a microwave tube power booster, and a powerconditioner.The Microwave MPM is capable of meeting requirements for 6 RF Payload Systems C Payload 1999-2005 efficiency, noise, and powerfor. Neither solid-state CAST DFH_4 series Technologies devices nor TWT alone are completely satisfactory. The solid-state driver develops a relatively low noise, low power (about one watt) signal which is amplified in a TWT to provide a low noise RF output of about 100 watts. MPMs are replacing solid-state devices operating at the upper limits of solid-state amplifier power output and frequency Microwave Flexible TM/TC interface: all major TM/TC 6 RF Payload Systems C Payload 1999-2005 CAST DFH_4 series requirements can be adapted Technologies New No System Design & System Analysis System Design and System design and simulation of large payload Generation 8 C I information CALT Verification and Design Simulation launch vehicles Launch available Vehicle Missioni control CALT, Mission Control & Mission Control Design of mission control systems 9 B I system architecture 2003-2020 CAST, Lunar Mission Operations Systems (MCS) and technologies SAST CALT, Flight Dynamics (FD) Highly precise navigation technologies for deep 10 A Flight Dynamics 2003-2020 CAST, Lunar Mission & Precise Navigation space operation SAST Telemetry & tracking sysems for deep space CALT, Flight Dynamics (FD) Precise Navigation 10 B I PN Ground Tracking 2003-2020 operation CAST, Lunar Mission & Precise Navigation (PN) SAST Disaster Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & Analytical Payload for sandstorm monitoring and short term No information monitoring 14 Sciences B Support of I 1998-2005 Instrumentation early warning available (optical & Instrumentation Physical Sciences radar) 16 detection instruments onboard the two Life & Physical Instrumentation in satellites; Double Sensors & Analytical 14 Sciences B Support of I 2001-2004 8 of them are built by China. First mission Cooperation with ESA CAST Satellite Instrumentation Instrumentation Physical Sciences launched by china to Detection Plan explore the Earth’s magnetosphere. Micro/Nano No Mechanisms & Harbin Institute of 15 O Technology information Microsatellite technology design & development Tansou-1 Tribology Technology Systems available

A.5 APPENDIX CHINA TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME COOPERATION PRIME OTHER TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME COMMENTS CONTRACTOR COMMENTS Micro/Nano Tsinghua Mechanisms & Nanosatellite technology development: (to be OlympicSat 1 15 O Technology 2001-2003 University Space Tribology discussed) & 2 Systems Center Space Solar Telescope for the exploration of solar magnetic fields

Features: 1) 1m diameter telescope with 8 channels, real Optical telescope and time 2-D spectrograph, 8 CCDs CAST, Solar Optics & Opto- 16 A Optics III optical bench 2003-2005 2) Array of 4 Soft-X-Ray Telescopes, 0.25" space CAS, Telescope Electronics technologies resolution CALT Satellite 3) 256 channel Wide Band Spectrometer, ranging from Soft X-ray to Gamma-ray. 4) H and White Light telescope; 5) Solar and Interplanetary Radio Spectrometer, ranging from 100 KHz to 60 MHz CCD Camera with 20-m resolution and 113 km CAST, Optical components, Optics & Opto- swath, IR Multi-Spectral Scanner with 80-160-m CALT, 16 A Optics IV including micro-optics 1992-2010 INPI (Brasil) ZY-1 series Electronics resolution and 120-km swath, Wide-Field Imager INPAT and MOEMS with 260-m resolution and 900-km swath. Optical components, CAST, Optics & Opto- 16 A Optics IV including micro-optics 2002 High resolution digital imaging system CALT ZY-2 series Electronics and MOEMS Optics & Opto- Spectrometers and Advanced microwave remote sensors 16 A Optics XI 2001-2005 CAST HY-2 Electronics Radiometry (will significantly bolster China's ability Satellite payloads: to forecast weather, 1) Visible and Infrared Radiometer (VIRR) monitor the 2) Moderate Resolution and Infrared Imager environment and (MODI) Optics & Opto- Spectrometers and prevent and reduce 16 A Optics XI 1999-2010 3) Microwave Radiation Imager (MWRI), spatial SAST FY-3ABC Electronics Radiometers disasters. Co- resolution 15-80km operation: Weather 4) Infrared Atmospheric Sounder(IRAS) data and other 5) Microwave Atmospheric Temperature Sounder, information will be 8 channels shared with the rest of the world.) Chemical No New Liquid Propulsion 18 Propulsion A Propulsion I information New engine CALT generation Systems Technologies available launch vehicle Solid propellant orbital launch vehicle capable of Chemical No Solid Propulsion putting 100 kg into polar orbits. Target ime from 18 Propulsion A Propulsion II information CALT Kaituozhe-1 Systems request to launch 20 hours. Fixed launch pad or Technologies available mobile launch vehicle. Enviromental Control Enviromental No Life Support (ECLS) Human Space 21 A Control & Life V Systems information EVA, Space suits ISME and In-Situ Resource Flight Support (ECLS) available Utilization (ISRU)

A.6 APPENDIX JAPAN MISSION TABLE

JAPAN - MISSION TABLE

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME Advanced Earth Observing Satellite-II (ADEOS-II) "Midori-II" will map vegetation for the Instrumentation includes: global water energy (1) Advanced Microwave Scanning http://sharaku.eorc.n circulation (GEWEX) of Radiometer (AMSR) asda.go.jp/ADEOS2/ the World Climate (2) Global Imager (GLI) index.htmlhttp://www Research Planning (3) Sea Winds (SeaWinds) $10 million, .eoc.nasda.go.jp/ (WCRP), Climatic (4) Polarization and Directionality of China guide/satellite/satdat ADEOS-II Variation Research 2002 the Earth's Reflectance (POLDER) govern- a/adeos2_e.htmlhttp: (CLIVAR), International (5) Improved Limb Atmospheric ment //sharaku.eorc.nasda Biosphere Planning Spectrometer-II (ILAS-II). .go.jp/ (IGBP), Global Climate ADEOS-II was launched from ADEOS2/goal/goal.h Marine Observation Tanegashima Space Center on 14 tml System (GCOS) and December 2002 by an H-IIA. carbon circulation related to Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS). The Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) is one of the world's largest earth observation satellites. It follows JERS-1 and ADEOS and builds on their land observing technology. ALOS will be used for cartography, regional observation, disaster monitoring, and resource surveying. It will be launched in 2004 http://www.eorc.nasd by H-IIA rocket from Tanegashima a.go.jp/ALOS/index_ Space Center. It will be in a sun- body.htmhttp://alos.n To collect global and high- synchronous sub-recurrent orbit. The asda.go.jp/index- ALOS resolution land orbit repeat cycle is 46 days with a 2 2004 NASDA e.html observation data. day sub-cycle. The satellite weighs is http://www.eoc.nasd about 4,000kg. Its panchromatic a/satellite/satdata/alo spatial resolution is 2.5 meters. The s_e.html.go.jp/guide visible and near-infrared spatial resolution is 10m (at Nadir), and swath width is 70km. Its multi- polarization L-band SAR (PALSAR) has a 10m spatial resolution and 70km swath width in fine resolution mode, and 100m spatial resolution and 250-350km swath widths in SCANSAR mode.

Successor to the failed Astro-E. XRT built jointly by ISAS, Nagoya University and Five soft X-ray telescopes (XRT) NASA-GSFC. XIS feeding: built by Osaka · four CCD X-ray imaging Mission University, Kyoto spectrometers (XIS) covering the start: Univ., ISAS and energy range 0.4-10keV with energy April http://www.isas.ac.jp/ MIT. resolution ~ 120ev; 2001; ASTRO-E II X-ray astronomy mission ISAS e/enterp/missions/in X-ray · one X-ray spectrometer with similar Launch dex.html spectrometer energy range, but with energy schedule (XRS) built jointly resolution of 6 eV. d for early by ISAS and One hard X-ray telescope feeding a 2005. NASA. hard X-ray detector (HXD) in the Hard X-ray range 10-700keV. detector (HXD) being developed mainly by Tokyo University and ISAS http://www.isas.ac.jp/ All-sky survey in the near and mid- Launch e/enterp/missions/in infrared range (50mm - 200 mm). schedule ASTRO-F / Infrared astronomy survey dex.html Equipped with all-sky infrared d for ISAS IRIS class mission. http://astro.ic.ac.uk/~ photometer. Capable of imaging and February cpp/astrof/mission.ht spectroscopy in pointed mode. 2004. ml

A.7 APPENDIX JAPAN MISSION TABLE

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME The GX Launch Vehicle is a two- staged liquid launch vehicle planned to be operated by Galaxy Express Galaxy Express Corporation. It has a launch capability Corporation is of two-tons into an 800km sun owned by: synchronous orbit. The majority of the Ishikawajima- launch vehicle is composed of harima Heavy heritage technologies, but some parts Industry (IHI) : require leading-edge technological 31% development. Among these, the IHI Aerospace: second stage is loaded with an engine 18% using liquid natural gas (LNG) http://www.nasda.go. GX Launch Vehicle is a Private and Mitsubishi GX launch propellant that is the first of this type jp/projects mid-size rocket for 2007 govern- Corporation: 14% vehicle in the world. LNG is inexpensive as it /rockets/gx/index_e. commercial launches. ment Kawasaki Heavy is commonly used for utility gas, but it html Industry (KHI): has a power potential equivalent to 14% liquid hydrogen. NASDA is in charge Japan Aviation of exploring this undeveloped Electronics technical area of LNG engine and Industry, Limited: cryogenic propellant tanks using 13% composites, and participates in the Fuji Heavy GX launch vehicle flight verification Industry (FHI): 6% process. NASDA also studies the Kokusai Soko: 5% possibility of applying the results of this project to future space transportation systems.

http://www.spaceand tech.com/ spacedata/elvs/h2a_ The H-IIA comes in four variants. It sum.shtml incorporates a simplified design and Launch plan of the H- manufacturing process as well as IIA Launch Vehicle upgraded avionics and engines (LE- No.4 (H-IIA F4) GTO Aimed at high reliability 7A and LE-5B). The avionics system loaded with ADEOS- Payload*(28.5 deg and low cost; intended to has been improved through data bus II(Advanced Earth inclination): compete commercially on H-IIA innovation. The structure of the 2001- NASDA Observing Satellite 4000kg to 6000kg, the world market; easy to onboard electronic equipment has II), Fed Sat 8.5-9.5 billion yen manufacture and easy to been improved by simplifying the (Federation (US$70M to use communication line between the Satellite), WEOS US$80M) launch vehicle and the ground facility (Whale Ecology to a one-connection system for Observation monitoring the launch vehicle status. Satellite) and Micro-LabSat Information Sheet (NASDA)

Japan had The space shuttle technology test originally planned vehicle, HOPE-X (HOPE to launch the H-2 Experimental) is a test vehicle for the Orbiting Plane HOPE (H-II orbiting plane), a small Experiment unmanned space shuttle. Various HOPE-X is (HOPE-X), in technical obstacles with HOPE are a joint The HOPE-X is the 2004. The confronted using a full-scale model, project experimental shuttle to program has the HOPE-X. The Orbital Reentry between realize a reusable space already suffered Experiment Vehicle (OREX), NASDA http://www.nal.go.jp/j transport system created four years of HOPE-X Hypersonic Flight Experiment Frozen and NAL. pn/research/strpc/03 for the purpose of delay. This freeze (HYFLEX) and Automatic Landing Japan has 1.html establishing the primary is the result of Flight Experiment (ALFLEX) were all spent technology needed at the questions raised developed as preliminary US$238 early stage. . over how the experiments. Although the HOPE-X million on shuttle should be program has been frozen, the High the project. launched and is Speed Flight Demonstrator also the result of experiment will be conducted twice to flight anomalies of acquire data for R&D of future space H-II launch transportation systems. vehicles.

A.8 APPENDIX JAPAN MISSION TABLE

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME This project aims at verifying the technology necessary for the final phase of RSV return. Phase I targeted Phase I http://www.nasda.go. HSFD is a high speed navigation technology, attitude and Flight: jp flight and landing speed for autonomous flight Nov. 16, /projects/rockets/hsf demonstration project to technology. Phase II involves 2002 NASDA, d HSFD develop a future No comment improvement in the estimation method Phase II NAL /index_e.htmlhttp://w transportation vehicle for for trans-sonic aerodynamic Flight: ww.nal.go.jp/strpc "safe and easy travel to characteristics (more difficult than for July 1, /eng/otl/hsfd/index.ht the space". other speed regions) and verification 2003 ml of guidance and control design technology. The HTV is about four meters in diameter by 10 meters in length. The HTV design process it is divided into four modules: the Logistic Carrier H-II Transfer Vehicle Pressurized section, the Logistic (HTV) is under The HTV and Carrier Un-Pressurized section, the http://www.nasda.go. development by NASDA. ESA's ATV share avionics module, and the propulsion jp/projects HTV HTV is an orbital transfer 2007 NASDA the same module. The main structure is a /rockets/index_e.htm vehicles designed to carry rendezvous conical, semi-monocoque structure l supplies to the ISS. It will sensor. based on a launch vehicle design. be launched by the H-IIA. The four modules will be assembled at the final fabrication phase and tested for comprehensive strength and stiffness.

Japanese Experiment Kibo consists of four components: the http://jem.tksc.nasda A maximum of four Module Pressurized Module, the Exposed .go.jp/iss/kibo/yoatsu astronauts can perform (JEM, or Facility, logistics modules attached to 2006- _e.html#book01http:/ experimental activities NASDA "Kibo") of the each of them, and a Manipulator to be 2007 /www.nasda.go.jp/pr during long-duration space International used for experiments or for ORU ojects/iss/index_e.ht stays. Space changeout tasks. ml Station

To conduct in-orbit Several technology systems will be demonstration tests to evaluated, including the High-Speed improve existing satellites' Data Relay, High-Accuracy Kodama, data relay functions and Acquisition and Tracking Technology, http://www.nasda.go. Data Relay performance, and expand the Communications Network and 2002 NASDA jp/projects/sat/drts/in Test Satellite the data relay area in Advanced Satellite Bus Technology. dex_e.html (DRTS) order to meet the up- Bus technology tested includes: coming high level Propulsion Subsystem/Power Supply application requirements Subsystem/Attitude control subsystem from spacecrafts.

To study the lunar interior using seismometers and Technology for heat-flow probes installed penetrators in the penetrators. Two The LUNAR-A mission is the first step http://www.isas.ac.jp/ containing a very Luna-A penetrators will be toward a more long-range goal of 2004 ISAS e/enterp/missions/lu sensitive two- deployed on the lunar planetary seismology. nar-a/cont.html component surface; one on the seismometer and nearside, and another on a heat-flow probe the far side

The MUSES-C Mission will investigate an earth-approaching asteroid. ISAS intends to establish the technology to return samples of the MUSES-C, asteroid's surface to earth for detailed "Hayabusa" To acquire and verify the analysis. There are several sample- http://www.isas.ac.jp/ (Mu Space leading-edge technology return missions in progress in the 2003- ISAS e/enterp/missions/m Engineering required for a sample- world. While these missions require a uses-c/index.html Spacecraft- return mission. large-scale rocket, Japan has realized C) a mission that employs a small spacecraft owing to the discovery of a more approachable asteroid and has developed a highly efficient electric propulsion system for the spacecraft.

A.9 APPENDIX JAPAN MISSION TABLE

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME The M-V has the world's largest solid propellant satellite launch system, utilising new, lightweight materials and structures, flight control and guidance, aerodynamics, and avionics. The design guidelines for the M-V rocket are: to provide launch capability for space science programs into the 21st century; to take advantage of simplicity and low cost of solid propellant rockets for medium size payloads; to refine and upgrade the To keep up with the technology for solid propellant satellite demands for increased launchers; to use Kagoshima Space payload capability and to Center (KSC) with its range of safety 1997- http://www.isas.ac.jp/ M-V enable interplanetary regulations at the launch site; to make ISAS All solid rocket present e /enterp/rockets/ missions anticipated in the use of existing ground support late 1990s and beyond the facilities at KSC; to keep costs at a year 2000. level which enables annual launches. New technologies in the M-V include: HT-230M high-strength steel for the first and second stage motor cases, an interstage structure between 1st and 2nd stages corresponding to FIH (fire in the hole) separation system, CFRP motor cases for the third and kick stages to realize lighter weight, extendable nozzles for the third and kick stages, nose fairing opening mechanism, and FOG (fiber optical gyro) to sense vehicle attitude.

Nagoya University and ISAS have been developing multi- http://www.astro.isas layer coatings to .ac.jp/conference/ne enhance Will provide imaging capability for wcentx/abstract/ reflectivity at high hard X-rays up to 50 keV with the Launch abstract/Kunieda,Hid energies. supermirror hard X-ray telescope NeXT X-ray astronomy mission target ISAS eyo/abstract.txt Currently the (S~300cm2 @ 30-40 keV) and a hard 2009 http://www.a.phys.na transition edge X-ray imager. Focal length will be 8- goya- sensor type of 12 m. u.ac.jp/~hanawa/AP calorimeter is RM/pdf0/p.011.pdf being developed by ISAS and Tokyo Metropolitan University. Nozomi will study the upper Martian atmosphere with emphasis on its interaction with the solar wind. Nozomi weighs 541 kg, including the fuel for attitude and orbit control. The http://www.isas.ac.jp/ Planet-B The first Japanese Mars total weight of the 14 onboard 1998- ISAS e/enterp/missions/no ("Nozomi") orbiter scientific instruments is 35 kg. It will present zomi/cont.html have an orbit around Mars with 150 km periapsis and 15 Mars radii apoapsis on its arrival at Mars. Nozomi is now in its heliocentric orbit to arrive at Mars early in 2004.

A.10 APPENDIX JAPAN MISSION TABLE

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME NASDA completed projects such as the Orbital Re-entry Experiment (OREX) in 1994, the Hypersonic Flight Experiment (HYFLEX) in 1996, and the Automatic Landing Flight To reduce the space Experiment (ALFLEX) in 1996. transportation cost as well Through these flight experiments, as to ensure better safety, ALFLEX: http://spaceboy.nasd NASDA has acquired the basic NASDA and NAL have 1997 NASDA, a.go.jp RLV technologies related to next- been jointly conducting HYFLEX: NAL xxnote/rocket/e/roc_ generation space transportation R&D works for the 1996 e.html systems. The High Speed Flight development of reusable Demonstration is the next step in this space vehicles. area. In the future, NASDA plans to develop a Single Stage To Orbit, Two Stage To Orbit, or a space plane by making use of basic technologies obtained from these four projects.

SELENE, the largest mission to the Moon after the Apollo program, will This is an consist of a main polar-orbiting ISAS/NASDA joint To obtain scientific data of satellite at ~100km altitude and two program. Key the lunar origin and sub satellites (Relay Satellite / VRAD technologies evolution and to develop Satellite) in elliptical orbits with needed for the technology for future apolune at 2400km and 800km. The http://www.nasda.go. NASDA, subsequent moon SELENE lunar exploration. The orbiters will carry instruments for 2005 jp/projects/sat/selene ISAS exploration scientific data will be also scientific investigation of the Moon /index_e.html missions: 1) Soft- used for exploring the from orbit, on the surface, and Moon- landing possibility of future based observation of the Earth. The technology, 2) utilization of the Moon. mission will investigates energetic Survival particles, the electromagnetic field technology and plasma around the Moon, and Earth's plasma.

ISAS is responsible for the spacecraft and the solar optical telescope (SOT). NASA will provide focal plane package for SOT. http://www.isas.ac.jp/ The PPARC is e/enterp/missions/in This mission comprises a coordinated responsible for Started in dex.html set of optical, EUV and X-ray EUV imaging Solar physics mission to 1999. http://www.mpe.mpg. telescopes for measurements of the spectrometer investigate solar magnetic, Schedule de/panter/panter- SOLAR B solar magnetic field, upper ISAS (EIS) instrument atmospheric and coronal d for neu/AstroE2AtPanter atmosphere and corona to study integration, with phenomena. launch in .html coronal heating, solar flares and NASA & ISAS late 2006 http://stp.gsfc.nasa.g coronal mass ejections. participating in ov/missions/solar- hardware and b/solar-b.htm software development. NASA will provide grazing-incidence X-ray optics and ISAS will provide the X-ray CCD camera.

The SPICA mission is an Observatory-class mission with a 3.5- observatory-class m telescope cooled to 4.5K, optimised mission to make for mid- and far-infrared astronomy in http://www.ir.isas.ac.j follow-up SPICA the region 10mm – 200 mm range. To p/SPICA/h2l2_spie/h observations of Infrared astronomy (Formerly be stationed in a halo orbit at the Sun- 2010 ISAS 2l2.html the ASTRO- mission HII/L2) Earth L2 point. This mission is http://www.ir.isas.ac.j F/IRIS survey optimized for mid- and far-infrared p/SPICA/ mission. astronomy with a large (> 3.5 m), Complementary to cooled (4.5 K) telescope. NGST(1-10mm) and FIRST (100mm – 1mm)

A.11 APPENDIX JAPAN MISSION TABLE

MISSION TIME MISSION OBJECTIVES MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME FRAME Enabling Technologies: (1) Large- Scale Deployable Reflector (LDR) The To establish and verify the Technology (2) S-Band Mobile Engineering http://www.nasda.go. world's largest Satellite Communication System and Test Satellite 2003 NASDA jp/projects/sat/ets8/in No comment geostationary satellite bus S-Band Mobile Satellite Broadcasting VIII (ETS- dex_e.html technology. System Technology (3) Satellite VIII) positioning using the High Accuracy Clock The Wideband Enabling Technology: (1) Ka-band Inter- One of the multi-beam antenna (MBA) with high Networking A test platform for high- http://www.nasda.go. missions power multi-port amplifier (MPA) (2) engineering speed communication 2005 NASDA jp/projects/sat/winds/ connected with Ka-band active phased array antenna test and satellite technologies index_e.html the "I-Space" (3) On-board, high-speed ATM base- Demonstratio project. band switching router n Satellite (WINDS) The higher observing frequencies, cooled receivers, increased Space VLBI mission. Telescope bandwidth and a comprises a 12-m diameter off-axis larger telescope parabolic antenna. diameter will allow No infor- Perigee: 1,000km http://www.vsop.isas. gains of ~10 in VSOP-2 Radio astronomy mission mation ISAS Apogee 30,000km ac.jp/vsop2/ resolution and found Observing requires a two-way link sensitivity between the satellite and a tracking compared to station. VSOP-1. The possibility of introducing a rapid slew mode is under investigation.

XEUS is a follow- on to ESA's Cornerstone X- Ray Spectroscopy Mission (XMM- NEWTON). It is a joint ESA- The ISAS mission. mission is http://astro.estec.esa Designed with Observatory-class mission for X-ray under study No .nl/XEUS/mission/mi capacity for on- astronomy. Comprised of a rotating X- as program ssion.html orbit ray mirror spacecraft (MSC) with a envisaged XEUS X-ray astronomy mission schedule http://www.merate.mi refurbishment or focal length of 50m. A second by the info .astro.it/docM/reports augmentation by detector spacecraft (DSC) houses the Horizons available. /ann2001/ren01/nod ISS. The DSC will focal plane instrumentation. 2000 e51.html include an orbital Survey transfer motor Committee which will allow it to dock with the MSC and move mated pair to the ISS for expansion and refurbishment activity.

A.12 APPENDIX JAPAN TECHNOLOGY TABLE

JAPAN - TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME COOPERATION PRIME OTHER TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME COMMENTS CONTRACTOR COMMENTS Solar Array Paddle (PDL) can generate over 7,000W at EOL (End of Life). This is the largest power supply paddle NASDA has ever developed. Picture of the ALOS's solar panels are so-called "Light-Rigid solar array Power Generation Panel." paddle: 3 Spacecraft Power A I Solar Generator 2004 No information found NTSpace ALOS Technologies To keep maximum efficiency of the paddle, http://alos.nasda. ALOS must rotate the paddle such that it is go.jp/index- perpendicular to incident rays of sunlight. e.html The Paddle Drive Mechanism rotates the paddle and transports the power from the paddle to ALOS's power supply systems. Spacecraft Power Power Generation Verification task can be 3 A I Solar Generator 2001 Terrestrial Solar Cell, TSC NTSpace MDT-1 Technology shared.

Spacecraft Power Energy Storage Verified parts can be used 3 B No information found 2001 Common Pressure Vessel, CPV NTSpace MDT-1 Technologies for all space missions. Space System Space system Autonomy and Autonomous navigation No information 5 Control A architecture and II 2003 No information found MUSES-C Automated Operation (Far flight to an asteroid) found autonomy The largest payload on ALOS is the Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar Microwave (PALSAR). RF Payload 6 C Payload 2004 PALSAR provides higher performance than No information found NTSpace ALOS Satellite SAR Systems Technologies JERS-1's SAR. This sensor can obtain a wider swath than conventional SARs with multiple polarizations. Automation ,Telepresence & No information 13 B Robot Systems 2003 Asteroid soil sample No information found MUSES-C Robotics found

Far Infrared Surveyor (FIS) is a photometer optimised for all-sky infrared survey. Can be See also ISAS-led. Life & Physical Instrumentation in operated as an imager or as a Fourier cryogenic Sensors & Analytical Contractor ASTRO-F / 14 Sciences B Support of I 2004 transform spectrometer in pointed mode. No information found systems in Instrumentation information not IRIS Instrumentation Physical Sciences Infrared Camera (IRC) requires development Technology found. of large format high-sensitivity Ge:Ga detector Domain 15K arrays. See also X-ray spectrometer (XRS) utilises a micro- Life & Physical Instrumentation in NASA-GSFC, Wisconsin cryogenic Sensors & Analytical calorimeter array of 32 pixels operating at No information 14 Sciences B Support of I 2005 Univ., ISAS, Tokyo Metro. ASTRO-EII systems in Instrumentation 60mK. An energy resolution of 6 eV at 6keV found Instrumentation Physical Sciences Univ. and RIKEN Technology will be obtained across the array. Domain 15K

A.13 APPENDIX JAPAN TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME COOPERATION PRIME OTHER TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME COMMENTS CONTRACTOR COMMENTS X-ray Imaging Spectrometer (XIS) will produce images and spectra of X-ray sources in energy Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors & Analytical range 0.5-12keV. Comprises 4 1Kx1K CCD Joint effort by Osaka Univ., No information 14 Sciences B Support of I 2005 ASTRO-EII Instrumentation cameras and associated electronics. Each Kyoto Univ., ISAS, MIT found Instrumentation Physical Sciences CCD is a front-illuminated frame transfer device. Hard X-ray Detector (HXD) comprises 16 detectors surrounding 20 crystal scintillators. Life & Physical Instrumentation in Joint development effort Sensors & Analytical Detector units comprise gadolinium silicate No information 14 Sciences B Support of I 2005 mainly by Univ. Tokyo & ASTRO-EII Instrumentation (GSO) crystal inside a well in a bismuth found Instrumentation Physical Sciences ISAS germinate (BGO) crystal with PIN silicon diodes. PPARC is responsible for EUV imaging spectrometer Life & Physical Instrumentation in EUV Imaging Spectrometer (EIS) uses multi- Mitsubishi Sensors & Analytical (EIS) instrument integration, No information 14 Sciences B Support of I 2006 layer gratings and coatings. Ultra-high Electric Corp SOLAR B Instrumentation with NASA & ISAS found Instrumentation Physical Sciences resolution X-ray imaging by 2Kx2K CCDs (MELCO) participating in hardware and software development.

Two instruments planned: Mid-infrared Camera and Spectrometer will cover 5-25 µm with two channels to support diffraction-limited imaging, mid-resolution spectroscopy mode and a Life & Physical Instrumentation in coronagraphic mode for the direct detection of Sensors & Analytical No information 14 Sciences B Support of I 2010 planets in extrasolar systems. Far-infrared No information found SPICA Instrumentation found Instrumentation Physical Sciences Camera and Spectrometer will cover the 50- 200 µm range with two channels to support diffraction-limited imaging and mid-resolution imaging spectroscopy with a Fourier-transform spectrometer.

Life & Physical Instrumentation in ESA-led mission. ISAS to Sensors & Analytical Not yet No information 14 Sciences B Support of I No information found participate in detector XEUS Instrumentation defined found Instrumentation Physical Sciences spacecraft.

A.14 APPENDIX JAPAN TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME COOPERATION PRIME OTHER TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME COMMENTS CONTRACTOR COMMENTS New transition edge sensor cryogenic micro- calorimeters with spectral resolution E/dE > 1000 & target energy resolution of ~1eV are under development. Hybrid detectors covering 0.1 - 100 keV under development. These detectors comprise a thin back-illuminated CCD placed above a CdTe pixel detector. The ISAS and Tokyo Metro. Univ. Life & Physical Instrumentation in See also Sensors & Analytical CCD detects X-rays with energy < 10keV, and Osaka Univ., Kyoto Univ. No information 14 Sciences B Support of I 2009 NeXT Technology Instrumentation the CdTe detects X-rays that penetrate the and ISAS Tokyo Univ., found Instrumentation Physical Sciences Domain 16A CCD. Hard X-ray Detector (HXD) is under RIKEN, ISAS development to detect X-rays of several hundred keV. The detector consists of a stack of CdTe pixel detectors with a well type shield of BGO. Anti-coincidence logging of signals from pixels in different layers will allow efficient background noise reduction.

Life & Physical Instrumentation in ESA-led mission. ISAS to Sensors & Analytical Not yet No information 14 Sciences B Support of I Japan/ESA partnership not yet finalized. participate in detector XEUS Instrumentation defined found Instrumentation Physical Sciences spacecraft. See also Technology Life & Physical Instrumentation in Cooled receivers will allow gains of 10X in Sensors & Analytical Not yet No information Domain 19CI - 14 Sciences B Support of I resolution & sensitivity compared to previous No information found VSOP-2 Instrumentation defined found deployable Instrumentation Physical Sciences radio telescopes in space. antenna structures To use a modular structure to meet the requirements of reflector surface preciseness (2.4mm RMS) and antenna diameter Mechanisms & Deployment 15 B IV Deployable antennas 2004 expandability. To consist of 14 hexagon- No information found NTSpace ETS-VIII Tribology systems shaped modules connected to each other by cables. The outside dimension is 19m x 17m at the largest. Entire optical system cooled by super-fluid liquid He. The 170 litre system has a 500-day Cryogenic holding time, achieved with a two stage Mechanisms & No information 15 K Mechanism I Payload Mechanisms 2004 Stirling Refrigerator. Even if the system runs No information found ASTRO-F Tribology found Technologies out of liquid He, the telescope will remain cold enough to enable two years of observations in the near-infrared bands. New transition edge sensor cryogenic micro- Cryogenic See also Mechanisms & calorimeters with spectral resolution E/dE > ISAS and Tokyo Metropolitan No information 15 K Mechanism I Payload Mechanisms 2009 NeXT Technology Tribology 1000 & target energy resolution of ~1eV under University found Technologies Domain 14B development.

A.15 APPENDIX JAPAN TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME COOPERATION PRIME OTHER TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME COMMENTS CONTRACTOR COMMENTS This mission uses a 3.5-m telescope primary passively cooled to 4.5 K. The spacecraft is to be placed in a halo orbit at the Sun-Earth L2 Cryogenic Mechanisms & point. The telescope is launched warm (to No information 15 K Mechanism I Payload Mechanisms 2010 No information found SPICA Tribology reduce launch weight and to extend cool found Technologies lifetime) and cooled to 30 K passively, and then to 4.5 K with mechanical coolers. A two-stage Stirling cycle cooler is used. Mechanisms & Launcher Not yet Aiming at improvement of reliability and No information H-IIA (LE-5B 15 M I Turbopumps No information found Tribology Mechanisms defined inducer performance found Engine) Transmitted to EOC via both DRTS and as a direct downlink. PRISM data rate is 960 Mbps(for 3 telescopes),AVNIR-2 data rate is 160Mbps(for System Technologies Considered a dual-use On-Board Data Payload Data 4 bands), PALSAR data rate is 240Mbps(High- 16 A I for Payload Data 2002 technology, so sharing will be NASDA DRTS Systems Processing resolution Mode). Data handling systems can Processing tricky compress the data rate up to: Date rate via DRTS is 240Mbps, Directly Transmission data rate is 120Mbps. On-board data storage capacity is 96GB. System Technologies Considered a dual-use On-Board Data Payload Data Developing a new microchip that can store 3 16 A I for Payload Data 2002 technology so sharing will be Boeing DRTS Systems Processing times as much data Processing tricky Hardware Verified parts can be used On-Board Data Payload Data Technologies for for all space missions. 16 Systems A II 2003 Parallel Computer System, PCS NTSpace MUSES-C Processing Payload Data Verification task can be Processing shared.

A.16 APPENDIX JAPAN TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME COOPERATION PRIME OTHER TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME COMMENTS CONTRACTOR COMMENTS

The distance between geostationary and low earth orbit satellites could be up to 45,000 kilometers, so an optical inter-orbit communication systems would require high- power laser devices, high-gain optical antenna, and highly sensitive signal detectors. The beam divergence of an inter-orbit communication laser beam is several micro radians or about 0.0001 degree, and such a Optical components, beam only diverges approximately several Now the launch Optics & Opto- No information 16 A Optics IV including micro- Frozen millimeters at the point of one kilometer away. No information found OICETS of OICETS Electronics found optics and MOEMS Therefore, key technology elements for such a satellite is frozen. system are the "beam acquisition" to initially acquire an incoming laser beam with an accuracy better than one micro radian to maintain the communication link, and the "beam pointing" to accurately transmit a laser beam toward the position where the counter satellite will be when the beam reaches it, compensating for a "point ahead angle" due to the relative motion between the two satellites.

Optical Telescope & Optics & Opto- Primary and secondary mirrors made of No information ASTRO-F / 16 A Optics III optical bench 2004 No information found Electronics lightweight silicon carbide. found IRIS technologies ISAS is responsible for SOT. Optical Telescope & Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) for visible light NASA to provide focal plane Optics & Opto- No information 16 A Optics III optical bench 2006 images of the sun. X-Ray Telescope (XRT) package for SOT. NASA to SOLAR B Electronics found technologies requires grazing incidence optics. provide grazing incidence optics. 5 or 6 X-ray telescopes to be mounted on an Optical Telescope & optical bench, providing 8-12m focal lengths. Optics & Opto- No information 16 A Optics III optical bench 2009 New multi-layer coatings under development Nagoya University and ISAS NeXT Electronics found technologies for enhanced X-ray reflectivity in the region 10- 50keV. Optical Telescope & 3.5-m telescope with primary mirror optimised Optics & Opto- No information 16 A Optics III optical bench 2010 for mid- and far-infrared wavelengths, cooled No information found SPICA Electronics found technologies to 4.5K

A.17 APPENDIX JAPAN TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME COOPERATION PRIME OTHER TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME COMMENTS CONTRACTOR COMMENTS

ALOS has two advanced optical instruments: Panchromatic Remote-sensing Instrument for Stereo Mapping (PRISM) and Advances 1. Visible and Near Infrared Radiometer type http://www.eoc.nasda.go.jp/g 2(AVNIR-2). Overall optical uide/satellite/sendata/prism_ AVNIR-2 is a visible and near-infrared Optics & Opto- system definition, e.html 16 A Optics I 2004 radiometer for observing land and coastal NTSpace ALOS Electronics design and 2. zones and provides better spatial resolution engineering http://www.eoc.nasda.go.jp/g than ADEOS's AVNIR. It will be used to uide/satellite/sendata/avnir2_ provide land coverage maps and land-use e.html classification maps for monitoring regional environment. The instrument has a cross track pointing capability for disaster monitoring.

On-Board Data On-Board Data Verified parts can be used 16 Systems B III Data Storage 2003 Solid State Recorder, SSR NTSpace MUSES-C Management for all space missions. Next Chemical Extendible Nozzle and Dual Bell Nozzle Liquid Propulsion Not yet No information Generation 18 Propulsion A Propulsion I Aerospike Engine No information found Systems defined found Launch Technoloies Rocket Combustion Visualization Vehicles Electric No information 18 Propulsion B 2003 Electric propulsion application No information found MUSES-C Propulsion found Deployable 12-m off-axis parabolic antenna. Chief technical challenge is the requirement Inflatable & Structures & Not yet placed on the surface accuracy of the mesh No information 19 C Deployable I Antenna Structures No information found VSOP-2 Pyrotechnics defined antenna by the highest observing frequency of found Structures 43GHz. Rapid slew capability is under investigation. Thermal No information 20 Thermal C I Ablative Systems 2003 Return trip from far asteroid. No information found MUSES-C Protection found Component Components Verification task can be 22 B Evaluation II Silicon Devices 2001 Commercial Semiconductor Device, CSD NTSpace MDS-1 shared. Technology

A.18 APPENDIX RUSSIA MISSON TABLE

RUSSIA - MISSION TABLE

MISSION MISSION TIME MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME OBJECTIVES FRAME B. Harvey, "Russia in Space, The Failed Frontier?", Springer- Praxis Books in Astronomy and Space Sciences series, 2001K. Marinin, "The Federal Space 1. Provide launch Four different versions: Uses extensively Program of Russia", Novosti capabilities of Angara 1.1 proven technology Government Kosmonavtiki Journal, No 12 Angara New various payload Angara 1.2 of previous of the (215), 2000 Launcher masses for Russia Angara 3A 2005 missions.Will be Russian Russian Space Web, System until 2030 Angara 5A launched from Federation http://www.russianspaceweb.co 2. Decrease usage Derivative: Plesetsk and m/angara.html of toxic fuels Reusable launcher Baikal Baikonur Encyclopaedia Astronauticahttp://www.astronau tix.com/lvs/angara11.htm plus other pages on Angara at the same site. Designed to provide US$780 - companies and US$800 http://www.spacedaily.com/new GEO organizations with satellite million 25- s/microsat- Dialog Communication 2003-2006 Vehicle: Proton-M channels for high speed 35% 01f.htmlhttp://www.jaye.com/ne Satellites communications and data government ws/L8Feb01183737.cfm transmission services. funding Monitor E, Monitor I1, Seven spacecraft. New Khrunichev http://www.skyrocket.de/space/i I2Monitor E=Experimental, I = Thermal No No system for remote Set of spacecraft ndex_frame.htm?http://www.sky SMonitor Imaging, S=Stereo Scanner, information information sensing would with unified bus rocket.de/space/doc_sdat/monit OMonitor O = High resolution, R = found found include seven or-mockup.htm R3Monitor Radar spacecraft. R23 Government Electron-2 Temperature and humidity http://www.copernicus.org/COS Launch by of the (Alias Electro-Weather satellite data with improved accuracy, PAR/warsaw2000/programme/a 2005 Russian GOMS-2) Resolution 1.25 km bstracts/bbi4437.pdf Federation O. Zdanovich, "Organization And Structure Of Russian Space Activities", presentation at the International Space Full Russia seeks to replenish its Government University, Summer Session capability of Global Navigation fleet of navigation satellites, of the Program of 2003. Plans for Glonass- Glonass 21-25 Satellite System to bring the system to full Russian Personal communication with K (Block-II) satellites by capability Federation Mr. Feng Li, Director, Science, 2007 Technology & Quality Department, China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation Radioastronomy Project has been on orbit. going for long, now Observatory to http://ccs.honeywell- getting boosted by make VLBI (Very 10-meter radio telescope Launch: No tsi.com/msdb/mission_informati international Long Baseline payload mass - 1.5 metric June 2005, Radioastron information on.asp?Mission=RadioAstronhtt cooperation. Interferometer) tons, including 700-kg Maintenanc found p://www.asc.rssi.ru/radioastron/ Coordinated by observations in deployable antenna e: until 2010 documents/memo/memo5.htm Astro Space Center conjunction with of the Lebedev radio telescopes Physical Institute on the ground Earth resource V. Mochov, "The assembly of First civil satellite of Russia Launch Special capabilities mapping and Rossaviakos 'Resurs-DK' has started", Resurs-DK with resolution of 1m; Digital 2003 or for environmental remote sensing mos Novosti Kosmonavtiki Journal, data transmission capability 2004 disaster mapping satellite Vol. 13, No 5 (244), 2003 Russian Federal Space International project Program;http://www.aip.de/grou in cooperation with ps/sternphysik/dri/public_html/s Ukraine, Italy, Normal incidence telescope Govern-ment, uvpages/suv.htmlRussian Hungary, and for imaging and Total budget General-purpose Federal Space Germany,Stated in Spectrum- spectroscopy in the shared by all ultraviolet 2007? Program;http://www.fas.org/spp/ 1989 UV wavelength range of 91 to the partners observatory guide/russia/science/astronomy/ Smaller 25-m and 400 nm is US$600 spektr- 32-m antennas will 170 cm aperture, million r.htmhttp://sgra.jpl.nasa.gov/mo assist with saic_v0.0/RadioAstron.htmlhttp: spacecraft //seth.inasan.rssi.ru/SUV communications

A.19 APPENDIX RUSSIA MISSON TABLE

MISSION MISSION TIME MISSION DETAILS FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME OBJECTIVES FRAME

Energy band - far UV through Gamma raysMass of Being built in a the satellite - 5.9 tons broad international mass of the payload - 2750 collaboration under kg. Large world-class the leadership of Unique scientific capabilities: Govern-ment, multi-wavelength Russia. simultaneous multi- Total budget multi-instrument Russian Federal Space Participants: Spectrum-X- wavelength observations shared by all orbiting high- 2006 Program;http://hea.iki.ru/SXG/s Denmark, UK, Gamma from UV to hard X-rays ; high the partners energy xg_00/science/science.html Germany, Italy, resolution imaging is US$800 astrophysics USA, Finland, spectroscopy of extended million observatory Switzerland, Israel, sources; sensitive X-ray Hungary, polarimetry; all-sky X-ray Kyrgyzstan, monitoring; study of cosmic Canada, Turkey gamma-ray bursts and their afterglow emission

Solar arrays provide higher http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/rus Nika-T (alias Microgravity power than Photon (4.5 kW No Started sia/material/nikat.htmhttp://www Nikha alias spacecraft to for experiments) information 1989 .fas.org/spp/civil/russia/kbom.ht Nika) follow Photon cabability of several payload found m deorbits http://www.imbp.ru/webpages/e ngl/Articles/articles_e.htmlhttp:// www.imbp.ru/webpages/engl/Art icles/Life_scienceE.htmhttp://w 1. Medical support 2. Long ww.imbp.ru/webpages/engl/Artic Medical aid and prophylaxis No duration Manned mission to Continuous les/Russian_Medical_E.htmhttp: 3 Space biology and information human space Mars Research //www.imbp.ru/webpages/engl/A physiology 4. found flight rticles/Space_Medicine.htmhttp: Countermeasures //www.imbp.ru/webpages/engl/A rticles/artic1_e.htmlhttp://www.i mbp.ru/webpages/engl/Articles/ artic4_e.html

I. Lisov, "Successes of 'Koronas- Government Analysis of the sun at almost F' and prospects of the Russian Already in of the Koronas-F Sun Research all wavelengths (from scientific space projects", operation Russian gamma-rays to visible) Novosti Kosmonavtiki Journal, Federation Vol. 13, No 5 (244), 2003 Privately funded by the Planetary http://www.planetary.org/solarsa Launch Planetary society,Launch Cosmos-1 Solar Sailing Technology demonstration il/http://www.spacedaily.com/ne 2003 Society from Russia, ws/rocketscience-03f.html groundstation near Moscow

State Rocket Center "Design Circular orbit max Bureauna- 115 kg satellite. med after http://www.rosaviakosmos.ru/en Experienced Small satellites Already in Academ-ician glish/e_volna_ts.htmlhttp://hom problems with Volna 2-stage cheap launches operation V.P. Makeev" e.comcast.net/~rusaerog/RAG/ payload Central RAG6.html deployment, now Research tests look well for Institute of next launches. Machine Building

Keldysh Snecma group 2002 highlights Reusable Rocket institute, http://www.snecma.com/en/pres Volga 2006 Engine NPO Energo- s/upload/2002_highlights_en.pd mash f

A.20 APPENDIX RUSSIA TECHNOLOGY TABLE

RUSSIA - TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION PRIME TD TSD TG TIME FRAME KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP COMMENTS CONTRACTOR Solar dynamic power plant Power Generation Solar dynamic 3 Spacecraft Power A I 2007 providing 10-25 kW per plant, NASA Keldysh institute ISS upgrade Technologies power plants ISS upgrade Microgravity Spacecraft, autonomous operation. V.P.Barmin Design Space system Autonomy and Planning in Space System Successor of Foton with. Higher No information Bureau of General Nika-t (alias Nikha alias 5 A architecture and II Automated the period Launch by Zenit Control power (4.5 kW for experiments) found Machine-building (KB Nika) autonomy Operations 1989-1994 by solar panels, longer mission OM) duration. Power Generation Nuclear and No information No information 3 Spacecraft Power A III Long duration spaceflights Keldysh institute Topaz, 11B91X Technologies thermo-electric found found

Space segment Space System No information 5 B Guidance Navigation II GNC Technology 2004 High Accuracy Clocks No information found Glonass-K Control found and Control (GNC)

Space segment Space System No information 5 B Guidance Navigation II GNC Technology 2004 Time Synchronic unit No information found Glonass-K Control found and Control (GNC) RF Payload Microwave Payload No information 6 C 2004 L-band HPA (G1 and G2) No information found Glonass-K Systems Technologies found Generally expressed as long space Continuous missions:exploration of Life & Physical Instrumentation in Development Addition of new medicines and Suggestions to ESA No information Institute of Biological the Solar System and of 14 Sciences A support of Life (according to equipment to that available in human space missions found and Medical Problems the Universe, planned Instrumentation Sciences funding orbit currently. to Mars. exploration of the Moon, availability) envisaged manned mission to Mars. Continuous Life & Physical Instrumentation in Development Design, deployment of an on- No information Institute of Biological Human Spaceflight to 14 Sciences A support of Life (according to board telemedicine diagnostics & found and Medical Problems Mars Instrumentation Sciences funding treatment facility. availability) Continuous Design, deployment of a surgical Life & Physical Instrumentation in Development module or compartment with No information Institute of Biological Human Spaceflight to 14 Sciences A support of Life (according to anesthesiology equipment for in- found and Medical Problems Mars Instrumentation Sciences funding orbit surgery. availability) Continuous Life & Physical Instrumentation in Development Improvements in transfusion- No information Institute of Biological Human Spaceflight to 14 Sciences A support of Life (according to infusion therapy. found and Medical Problems Mars Instrumentation Sciences funding availability)

A.21 APPENDIX RUSSIA TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION PRIME TD TSD TG TIME FRAME KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP COMMENTS CONTRACTOR Continuous Improvements in pharmacological Life & Physical Instrumentation in Development prophylaxis of adverse effects of No information Institute of Biological Human Spaceflight to 14 Sciences A support of Life (according to space-flight on human organism found and Medical Problems Mars Instrumentation Sciences funding based on clinic trials. availability) Csiro (Australia), EVN (Europe), Astro Space Center of Implementation started Life & Physical Instrumentation in Sensors and Large orbital radiotelescope (10 HUT (Finland), the Lebedev Physical '92.Launch Jun 2005, 14 Sciences B support of Physical I Analytical 2005 Radio-astron m diameter) ESA, Canadian Institute, RAS and maintenance until Instrumentation Sciences Instrumentation Space Agency, Rosaviakosmos 2010 NASA Cosmos studios, Mechanisms & Solar Sailing 15 B Deployment systems Q Launch 2003 Deployment of Solar Sails Babakin Center Cosmos-1 media venture together Tribology Mechanisms with Planetary Society V.P.Barmin Design Planning in Mechanisms & Entry/ Descent, Capability of experiment sample No information Bureau of General Nika-t (alias Nikha alias Launch by Zenit, 15 B Deployment systems R the period Tribology Landing Devices delivery separately found Machine-building (KB Nika) planning 89-94? 1989-1994 OM) GEO Weather satellite, Optics and Optical Equipment temperature and humidity data No information Electron-2(Alias Electro- 16 A Optics VI Launch 2005 No information found Optoelectronics technology with improved accuracy, found GOMS-2) Resolution 1.25 km

High Resolution optical and IR remote sensing. First Russian civilian remote sensing satellites Spacecraft Series with 1m resolution in the optical Seeking customers Resurs-DK Optics & Opto- High Precision RESURS-DK1, DK2 and 16 A Optics X 2003-2004 and infrared spectrum. Real time in the commercial TsSKB Progress Funded by Electronics Optical Metrology DK3 information relay. System suitable market Rossaviakosmos Has for cartography, monitoring of high priority status agriculture and natural or technological disasters.

The High Resolution Double Echelle Spectrograph (HIRDES) Spectral range: 110 -350 nm The Rowland Spectrograph Spectral Optics and Spectrometers and range: 91 - 400 nm The Direct Russia, Ukraine, 16 A Optics XI 2010 No information found Spectrum-UV Optoelectronics Radiometers Imaging Camera Spectral range: Italy and Germany 115 - 360 nmspectral range of 91- 300 nm is not available from Earth for athmospheric absorbtion.

A.22 APPENDIX RUSSIA TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION PRIME TD TSD TG TIME FRAME KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP COMMENTS CONTRACTOR Being built in a broad international simultaneous multi-wavelength collaboration under observations from UV to hard X- the leadership of rays ; high resolution imaging Russia.Participants spectroscopy of extended High Energy Optics and Spectrometers and : Denmark, UK, 16 A Optics XI 2006 sources; sensitive X-ray Astrophysics at IKI, Spectrum-X-Gamma Optoelectronics Radiometers Germany, Italy, polarimetry; all-sky X-ray Moscow, Russia USA, Finland, monitoring; study of cosmic Switzerland, Israel, gamma-ray bursts and their Hungary, afterglow emission. Kyrgyzstan, Canada, Turkey Lox/Kerosene Rocket Engine. Based on RD-170 General model that will be used the same company in the whole Angara booster has developed the Chemical Propulsion Liquid Propulsion Inform-ation Angara Launcher 18 Propulsion A I family. Based in the successful RD-180 for the NPO Energomash Technologies: Systems not found System RD-170 engine that was poweringAtlas-5 rocket, so the Energya rocket with one- open to chamber configuration. cooperation Angara base block. Lox/Kerosene One of the Four different models Rocket Engine. Modular core that development Chemical Propulsion Liquid Propulsion Angara Launcher according to the 18 Propulsion A I 2003 can be clustered to lift large criteria has be Khrunishev Technologies: Systems System number of base payloads and can take various commercial boosters included upper stages. utilization Snecma (France), Chemical Propulsion Liquid Propulsion Astrium, Volvo Keldysh institute, NPO 18 Propulsion A I 2006 Reusable rocket engine Volga Technologies: Systems Aero corporation, Energomash Techspace Aero 1-4 Baikal boosters can be grouped to Baikal: reusable (fly back) launch provide variable lift vehicle. Booster with air- capability in Air-Breathing and Khrunishev with KB Chemical Propulsion breathing engine on the nose, Angara Launcher combination with an 18 Propulsion A III Hybrid Propulsion 2006 Seeking investors Molniya for the aircraft Technologies: that provides controlled fly-back. System Angara core stage. Systems parts The engine is fuelled by Uses the same rocket kerosene. engine (RD-190/191) as the rest of the Angara booster family. Cheap and small launches from Launches small ICBM converted launchers Design Bureau named Submarine: Volna, Zyb, Chemical Propulsion ICBM converted satellites from sites 18 Propulsion A Already in use deployed from submarines or after Academician Vysota, Shtil Others: Technologies small launchers situated in different from Plesetsk, Woomera, V.P. Makeev, MIT Start, Start-1 countries Svobodny Solar Sailing Cosmos studios, Advanced Space No information 18 Propulsion C III Propulsion Launch 2003 Solar Sailing experiment Babakin Center Cosmos-1 media venture together Propulsion found Systems with Planetary Society

A.23 APPENDIX RUSSIA SPACE CORPORATIONS TABLE

Main Russian Space Corporations

Official Full Designation Type Activity Abbreviation Federal State Unitary KB Arsenal Arsenal Frunze Design Bureau Development of spacecraft Enterprise Development, manufacturing and testing of piloted and automated Korolyov Rocket Space RKK Energiya Open Joint-stock company spaceships, systems and Corporation Energiya assemblies for orbital space stations Development and manufacturing Khrunichev State Research and GKNPTs Khrunichev State enterprise of launch vehicles and Production Space Center spacecraft Development of launch vehicles Komplex-MIT Scientific Research on the basis of ICBM NTTs Komplex-MIT Subordinated to RASA Center technology and commercial launch services Moscow Heat Technology MIT State Enterprise Development of ICBMs Institute Design and manufacturing of Lavochkin Research and NPO Lavochkin State enterprise automated spacecraft, analysis of Production Association spacecraft trajectories, etc. Makeyev Design Bureau Development of sea-launched GRTs KB Makeyev State enterprise (State Rocket Center ) ballistic missiles Scientific Research Institute for Development of spacecraft and NIIEM State enterprise Electromechanics electromechanical systems Research and Production Development of cruise missiles NPO Machine Association for Machine Building State Unitary Enterprise and satellites, manned and Building FNPTs - Federal Research and unmanned spacecrafts, etc. Production Center Polyot Production Production of spacecraft and PO Polyot State Unitary Enterprise Association launch vehicles Reshetnyov Applied Mechanics Federal State Unitary Development and manufacturing NPO PM Research and Production Enterprise of satellites Association Progress State Research and Production of launch vehicles TsSKB Progress State enterprise Production Rocket Space Center and spacecrafts

Yosifyan Pan-Russian Scientific Research Institute and Factory of Development of Earth observation NPP VNIIEM Electromechanical Systems State enterprise satellites, electromechanical (Research and Production drives and gyrodynes Enterprise) Serial production of ballistic GPO Votkinsk Plant Votkinsk Zavod State Production AState enterprise missiles and converted launch vehicles Centrl Scientific Research Federal State Unitary Tesing and certification of space TsNIIMASH Institute for Machine Building Enterprise systems

A.24 APPENDIX RUSSIA RUSSIAN ACADEMIC INSTITUTE

Full Designation Activity Studies technological issues of global safety- Center for Program Studies of the Russian Academy Participation in remote sensing program – Resurs of Sciences (CPI RAN) satellites Lavochkin microgravity probe – microgravity Center for Space Biotechnology experiments Monitoring of solar activity, geomagnetism and Ye.K.Fedorov Institute of Applied Geophysics (IPG) ionosphere M.V. Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Ballistic support for spacecraft Russian Academy of Sciences (IPM) Institute of Applied Mechanics Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy Development of power electronics - Gyrotrons of Sciences (IPF RAN) Institute of Astronomy Astronomy – Spektr project Institute of Biophysics of the Siberian Division of the Closed cycle ecosystems for long term space Russian Academy of Sciences missions Institute of General Physics Laser physics spectroscopy, plasma physics V.I.Vernadskiy Institute of Geochemistry and Geochemistry space chemistry, comparative Analytical Chemistry planetology Institute of High Temperatures A.A.Blagonravov Institute of Machine Studies Science and Research Institute of Mechanics of the Fluid and gas dynamics Moscow State University Medical and biological support for humans in space, Institute of Medical and Biological Problems (IMBP) in-flight support, rehabilitation Institute of Physical Chemistry Institute of Problems of Information Transfer Institute of Problems of Management Institute of Problems of Mechanics Gyroscopic technology Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Human psychology in space missions Sciences (IPRAN) Microwave scanners and radiometers for Earth Institute for Radio Technology and Electronics observing satellites Economic, legal and management issues of space Institute of Space Policy activities Institute of Space Physics Research and Aeronomy Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy Astrophysics, extraterrestrial astronomy of Sciences geophysics, solar-terrestrial physics Institute of Earth Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Plasma physics satellite experiments Waves Institute of Theoretical Astronomy Institute of Thermal Physics of the Siberian Division of RAN Kurchatov Institute Nuclear Research and Development NII of Economics, Planning and Management Economic research institute Institute of Physics and Energy (FEI) Nuclear physics, thermal physics, hydraulics A.F.Ioffe Physical and Technical Institute (FTI RAN) Astrophysics; laser research; microgravity research Lebedev Astronomy Center of the Physics Institute Advanced programs Spektr-R (Radioastron), of the Russian Academy of Sciences Millimetron, Submillimetron National programs ISZ-2, ISZ-3, Elektron-2, Elektron-3, Venera-2, Cosmos-166, 230, 1686,etc. Optica Department of the Lebedev Physics Institute International programs Intercosmos-1, 4, 7, 11, of the Russian Academy of Sciences Phobos Advanced programs Koronas-F, ISS, Solnyechniy Zond, Interhelios Russian Institute of Applied Mechanics and Research in electric propulsion Electrodynamics (RIAME) Russian Law Academy Science and Research Institute of Nuclear Physics Research in nuclear physics and cosmic rays State Astronomic Institute named after P.K.Shternberg (GAISh)

A.25 APPENDIX U.S.A. MISSION TABLE

USA - MISSION TABLE

MISSION MISSION MISSION DETAILS TIME FRAME FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME OBJECTIVES NASA FY2004 Full budget; http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003; Mission information: (1) http://aquarius.gsfc.nasa.gov/intro.html; August 21, 2003; (2) http://aquarius.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission.html; August 21, 2003; (3) http://aquarius.gsfc.nasa.gov/science.html; August 21, 2003; (4) http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/aquarius/index.h 09/2002.* tml; August 21, 2003;(5) To measure global Sea Surface http://www.conae.gov.ar/sac- Salinity (SSS), and chart seasonal *Note: alternate d/SuppDocs/Aquarius_Proposal_Science_ To provide global and year-to-year variations. The reference dated Plan.pdf; August 21, 2003; (6) maps of salt science goals also include the Jan 2003 lists Aquarius $8M http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/rele concentrations in modelling of processes relating launch date as ase_2002_156.html; August 21,2003; the ocean salinity variations to climatic 09/2007; other (7)http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission_ffp.ht changes, global cycling of water, source ml; August 21, 2003; (8) Koblitsky C and R and oceanic circulation. (undated) cites Colomb. Aquarius/SAC-D Mission: 2006-2007. understanding the response of the ocean to the global water cycle and climate. Poster presented at the First Meeting of the Science Team for CONAE SAC-D (March 18-20, 2003, Mar del Plata, Argentina); (9) http://www.bigelow.org/world.html; August 21, 2003; (10) http://ccs.honeywell- tsi.com/msdb/mission_information.asp?Mi ssion=Aquarius; August 21, 2003; (11) http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/aquarius/; August

Aura's mission is designed to (1) http://eos-chem.gsfc.nasa.gov/; (2) observe the atmosphere to http://eos- answer whether the Earth's ozone chem.gsfc.nasa.gov/instruments/hirdls/intr layer recovering; whether air oduction.html; (3) http://eos- quality is getting worse and how chem.gsfc.nasa.gov/instruments/mls/introd Earth's climate is changing. uction.html; (4) http://eos- To measure trace Aura's new objective over chem.gsfc.nasa.gov/instruments/tes/introd Aura gases of the Earth Launch 2004 previous atmospheric research uction.html; (5) http://eos- atmosphere missions is to also probe the chem.gsfc.nasa.gov/instruments/omi/intro Earth's troposphere, the region of duction.html; (6) MSL: the atmosphere that most affects http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/; (7) OMI: our daily lives (from the ground to http://www.nivr.nl/; (8) TES: about 10km). http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/; (9) HIRDS :http://www.eos.ucar.edu/hirdls/

CALIPSO will provide key measurements of aerosol and cloud properties needed to improve climate predictions. CALIPSO will fly a 3-channel lidar Mission information: with a suite of passive $28M To measure NASA Langley Research Center: *Combined with instruments in formation with request aerosol and cloud CALIPSO, http://www- efforts of Aura and Aqua to obtain coincident $28M FY04 Calipso properties using marras.04 calipso.larc.nasa.gov/ , August 21, 2003 CloudSAT (Part of observations of radiative fluxes ($163M lidar and passive NASA FY2004 Full budget Earth System and atmospheric conditions. projected remote sensing http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu Science budget) CloudSat will also fly in formation life cost)* dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003 with CALIPSO to provide a comprehensive characterization of the structure and composition of clouds and their effects on climate under all weather conditions.

A.26 APPENDIX U.S.A. MISSION TABLE

MISSION MISSION MISSION DETAILS TIME FRAME FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME OBJECTIVES

CloudSat is a multi-satellite, multi- sensor experiment designed to measure properties of clouds to understand their effects on both NASA FY2004 Full budget weather and climate. The http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu *Combined with $17M FY04 To explore vertical mission's primary science goal is dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003 efforts of Calipso ($142M CloudSAT structure of clouds to furnish data needed to evaluate 2004 Mission information: and Aura (Part of projected using radar and improve the way clouds are http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/clouds Earth System life cost) parameterized in global models, at.html Science budget) thereby contributing to better Aug 20, 2003 predictions of clouds and climate. CloudSat will fly in tight formation with the CALIPSO satellite.

NASA FY2004 Full budget http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. Mission information: http://www.college.ucla.edu/dawn/ http://dawn.artov.rm.cnr.it/mission/spacec. html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/Maste This mission will study the FY04 rCatalog?sc=DAWN asteroid Vesta beginning in 2010. $125M http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/ To orbit Vesta and It will then move to the asteroid ($390M Dawn touko.06 news/releases/2003/03-131.html Ceres asteroids Ceres and begin studying it in projected http://dawn.artov.rm.cnr.it/mission/traj.html 2014. This mission is part of life cycle Dawn: A Journey to the Beginning of the NASA’s Discovery Program. cost) Solar System: C.T. Russell, A. Coradini, W.C. Feldman, R. Jaumann, A.S. Konopliv, T.B. McCord, L.A. McFadden, H.Y. McSween, S. Mottola, G. Neukum, C.M. Pieters, C.A. Raymond, D.E. Smith, M.V. Sykes, B.G. Williams, and M.T. Zuber. Dawn’s Attractive Science: C.T. Russell.

NASA FY2004 Full budget Deep Impact will arrive at Comet NASA FY2004 Full budget Temple 1 and send an impacter FY04 $22M To study the http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu towards it with a mass of 370 kg. ($282M Deep pristine interior of a dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. Cameras and spectrometers will December 2004 projected Impact comet and crater Mission information: monitor the impact, the ejected life cycle formation. http://deepimpact.umd.edu/mission/factsh material, and the composition of cost) eet-bw.pdf the comet’s interior. http://deepimpact.umd.edu/

No new DSCVR is a mission to determine To monitor the funding set how solar radiation effects climate http://triana.gsfc.nasa.gov/home/ DSCVR Earth’s climate aside; by monitoring the Earth's radiant Delayed http://triana.gsfc.nasa.gov/instruments/epi (Triana) using various Awaiting power and analyzing weather c.htm instruments viable flight systems and cloud patterns. opportuinity

GPM will improve (1) climate prediction by quantifying space- time variability of precipitation along with improvements in achieving water budget closure; (2) the accuracy of global and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center: regional numerical weather Global Precipitation Measurement - Report Global prediction models through 8 White Paper, http://gpm.gsfc. Precipitatio accurate and precise To measure global nasa.gov/library.html , August 19, 2003 n measurements of instantaneous 2007 $28M precipitation Measurem rain rates, made frequently and NASA FY2004 Full budget ent (GPM) with global distribution; and (3) http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu flood and fresh water resource dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003 prediction through frequent sampling and complete Earth coverage of high-resolution precipitation measurements, plus innovative designs in hydro- meteorological modeling.

A.27 APPENDIX U.S.A. MISSION TABLE

MISSION MISSION MISSION DETAILS TIME FRAME FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME OBJECTIVES Gravity Probe B is The science instrument measures a fundamental the angle between the spin axis of physics research the gyroscopes and the fixed mission. It consists reference line provided by the of an orbiting FY04 $15M guide star (via the on-board Gravity relativity gyroscope September ($669M telescope). The IM Pegasi will http://einstein.stanford.edu/index.html Probe B experiment to test 2003. projected test the two predictions of general two unverified life cost) relativity for the behavior of predictions of gyroscopes near a massive body, Albert Einstein's and thus reveal the nature of general theory of space-time itself. relativity

To investigate and develop (1)http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/a technologies to rticle/0,12543,472020,00.html; August 22, support human 2003. space flight and to (2)Joshi J. Human Support Technology mitigate the Research to Enable Exploration. inherent risks of INTEGRITY is an all-inclusive, Initial $2 Presented at the Multiphase Flow in Space complex human deep-space mission simulator Million set As early as Power and Propulsion Workshop and Fluid Integrity exploration (housing mock transit, habitation, aside to 2008. Stability and Dynamics Workshop, missions by landing modules; also waste-, air-, build facility Cleveland, Ohio (USA), May 15, 2003. integrating and and water-recycling technologies. (NASA) Hosted by the Microgravity Science validating individual Division (NASA Glenn Research Center) technologies, and the National center for Microgravity systems, and Research for Fluids and Combustion. procedures http://hrf.jsc.nasa.gov/ together on the ground. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an orbiting infrared To study the observatory that will take the Universe place of the Hubble Space at the important but Telescope at the end of this previously decade. unobserved epoch To achieve its scientific of galaxy formation. James objectives, To peer through Webb the JWST will carry four dust to witness the 2010 http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/FastFacts.htm Space instruments: birth of stars and Telescope 1) TheNear Infrared Camera planetary systems (NIRCam) similar to our own. 2) The Near Infrared To get a better Spectrograph (NIRSpec) understanding of 3) The Mid Infrared Instrument the intriguing dark (MIRI) matter problem. 4) The Fine Guidance Sensors (FGS)

To perform close- up photography of This Orbiter will be launched on- the martian board an Atlas V-401 rocket. NASA FY2004 Full budget surface, analyze Once at Mars it will use http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu Mars minerals, look for aerobraking to achieve the correct dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003 Reconnais $184M for Part of $570M subsurface water, orbit and then perform its science Mission information: sance 2005 developme Mars Exploration trace how much mission over 2 years. In 2008 it http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/ Orbiter nt of Orbiter budget. dust and water are will end its primary science 2005 distributed in the mission, but will stay active until http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/mars atmosphere, and 2010 acting as an approach- _missns/mars-mro.html monitor daily global navigation and data relay satellite. weather.

This mission is a funded mission, but is still under study. Therefore, In the concept will mature much http://www.solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions formulation Mars more over the next few years. It /mars_missns/mars-smlan.html To search for signs phase; No Science is going to be a long-range rover 2009 of life and water. established Laboratory that will serve as a technology http://www.marstoday.com/viewsr.html?pid budget at demonstration mission and =4593 this time perform to-be-decided scientific measurements.

A.28 APPENDIX U.S.A. MISSION TABLE

MISSION MISSION MISSION DETAILS TIME FRAME FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME OBJECTIVES

The Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and Mercury Ranging (MESSENGER) mission Surface, is designed to study the Approx 1/3 Space characteristics and environment of $177M To determine origin NASA FY2004 Full budget Environme of Mercury from orbit. Specifically, requested of high density, http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu nt, the scientific objectives of the for three composition, dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003 Geochemis mission are to study the surface touko.04 related tectonic history, try, and composition, geologic history, missions atmosphere of Mission information: Ranging core and mantle, magnetic field, (Dawn and Mercury http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/ Mission and tenuous atmosphere of Deep (MESSEN Mercury, and to search for water Impact) GER) ice and other frozen volatiles at the poles over a nominal orbital mission of one Earth year.

To make first The New Horizons spacecraft NASA FY2004 Full budget reconnaissance of “observatory” includes propulsion, $130M as http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu New Pluto and Charon, navigation, and communications part of New dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2 tammi.06 Horizons and to visit other systems, plus the payload to study Frontiers objects beyond Pluto, its moon, and other objects Program Mission information: Neptune in the Kuiper Belt. http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/ For EO3’s Geosynchronou s Imaging Fourier Transform To test advanced Spectrometer technologies and (GIFTS): 2005- missions concepts, The New Millenium Program has 06; NASA FY2004 Full budget including EO3, ST5 various goals according to the FY04 $87M For ST5 http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu New and ST6 Projects particular instruments. All are ($700M nanosats: dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. Millenium involving nanosats, designed to test technologies FY02 2004; Mission information: Program Autonomous independent of other missions, so through For ST6 Inertial http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/index_flash.html, Sciencecraft that such technologies could be FY04) Stellar August 20, 2003 Experiment and flight-ready when needed. Compass: Inertial Stellar 2005; and for Compass Autonomous Scienceraft launch remains to be determined A preparatory project designed to test technologies for a polar- orbiting satellite system used to monitor global environmental NASA FY2004 Full budget conditions, and collect and http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu NPOES To monitor climate disseminate data related to: $96M for dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003 Preparator trends and global In partnership with weather, atmosphere, oceans, 2006 developme Mission information: y Project biological NOAA and DOD land and near-space environment. nt http://www.ipo.noaa.govhttp://jointmission. (NPP) productivity Advanced microwave imagery- gsfc.nasa.gov, sounding data products are August 20, 2003 designed to improve prediction of ocean surface wind speed and direction.

OCO will make precise global maps of the abundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, and use mature technologies to: make the first, global, space-based observations Mission information: of the column integrated CO2 dry Jet Propulsion Laboratory : Orbiting Orbiting air mole fraction; provide Carbon Observatory, To measure carbon Carbon independent data validation http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html, August dioxide in the heinä.07 FY04 $18M Observator approaches to ensure high 21, 2003 atmosphere y accuracy; combine satellite data NASA FY2004 Full budget with ground-based measurements http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu to characterize CO2 sources and dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003 sinks on regional scales on monthly to interannual time scales; fly in formation with the A- Train to facilitate coordinated observations and validation plans.

A.29 APPENDIX U.S.A. MISSION TABLE

MISSION MISSION MISSION DETAILS TIME FRAME FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME OBJECTIVES One goal of this mission is to NASA FY2004 Full budget study the geologic history of water http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu Phoenix To search for signs on Mars. The second is to search dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. Scout 2007 $29M of life and water. for evidence of a habitable zone Mission information: Mission on Mars that may exist in the ice- http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov soil boundary. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu

SOFIA is a joint cooperation between NASA and DLR (German Aerospace Center),to create a FY04 $55M airborne observation platform for ($597M infrared astronomy. SOFIA will expected allow study in the infrared life cost) Mission information: To observe outer spectrum, including interstellar http://www.sofia.usra.edu/Sofia/sofia.html space, using a 2004 cloud physics and star formation Budget August 20,2003 SOFIA modified Boeing Delayed by 2 in the Milky Way; proto-planetary sharing: NASA FY2004 Full budget 747SP aircraft with years. disks and planet formation in NASA 80% http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu 2.5 meter telescope nearby star systems; origin and ($41.3 dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. evolution of biogenic atoms, million for molecules and solids; and FY 2004) composition and structure of DLR 20% planetary atmospheres and rings, and comets..

Solar-B is a Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) mission proposed as a follow-on to the Japan/US/UK Yohkoh (Solar-A) collaboration. FY04 Mission information: To determine the The mission consists of a $12.5M http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/solar- solar origins of coordinated set of optical, EUV ($104M b.stm\, August 20, 2003 Solar-B Fall 2005 space weather and and X-ray instruments that will expected NASA FY2004 Full budget global changes investigate the interaction life cycle http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu between the Sun's magnetic field cost) dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003 and its corona to understand the mechanisms for solar magnetic variability and how this variability modulates the total solar output.

SIRTF is the largest infrared telescope ever launched into space, permitting views into Space To study objects in regions of star formation, the Total http://sirtf.caltech.edu InfraRed the Solar System centers of galaxies, and into newly August 2003 developme August 20, 2003 Telescope with a space-borne forming planetary systems. (launched nt cost http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/s Facility infrared SIRTF will also bring us successfully) roughly irtf.pdf , August 25, 2003 (SIRTF) observatory information about the cooler $2.2 billion objects in space, such as smaller stars, extrasolar planets, and giant molecular clouds.

The Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) is designed as a space- based 10-m baseline optical Michelson interferometer Mission information: $79M FY04 To link multiple operating in the visible waveband. http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim_in formulation Space telescopes to Over a narrow field of view, SIM dex.html stage; Full Interferome detect planets with will search for planetary 2009 August 20, 2003 budget not try Mission an orbiting companions to nearby stars, by NASA FY2004 Full budget yet interferometer detecting the astrometric 'wobble' http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu establiseds relative to a nearby reference star. dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. In its wide-angle mode, SIM will provide position measurements of stars.

A.30 APPENDIX U.S.A. MISSION TABLE

MISSION MISSION MISSION DETAILS TIME FRAME FUNDING DATA SOURCES COMMENTS NAME OBJECTIVES The mission consists of a coordinated set of optical, EUV and X-ray instruments that will apply a systems approach to the interaction between the Sun's NASA FY2004 Full budget $100M for magnetic field and its high http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu To trace and FY04; part temperature, ionized atmosphere. dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. STEREO examine coronal syys.05 of $423M The result will be an improved Mission information: mass ejections projected understanding of the mechanisms http://stp.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/stereo/st life cost that give rise to solar magnetic ereo.htm variability and how this variability modulates the total solar output and creates the driving force behind space weather.

Swift is a multi-wavelength observatory dedicated to the study of gamma-ray burst (GRB) science. Its three instruments will FY04 NASA FY2004 Full budget NASA FY2004 To study gamma observe GRBs and afterglows in Budget Full budget ray burst science the gamma-ray, X-ray and optical $6M http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu Swift using a multi- wavebands. The main mission tammi.04 ($184M dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. wavelength objectives for Swift are to: expected Mission information: observatory determine the origin of and life cycle http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov classify GRB’s; determine how the cost) blastwave evolves and interacts with the surroundings; and use GRB’s to study the early universe.

The new technology is the availability of a low The project provides a cost- cost, low-risk Synchroniz effective, long duration, Funded by testbed for on- ed Position replenishable, and easily DARPA, Mission information: board control Hold, reconfigurable platform. NASA and http://ssl.mit.edu/spheres/library.html software Engage To develop a Development and testing MIT – AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites development and and testbed for opportunities offered by the 1999 — on- Specific Aug 13-16, 2001 validation. The Reorient coordinating project are applicable to systems going funding Mission information: project is funded Experiment multiple satellites requiring coordinated motion of amount http://www.spacedaily.com/news/microsat- partly by the US al Satellites multiple satellites. unconfirme 03g.html Air Force but is (SPHERES The testbed is currently d. also destined for ) operational and is being NASA use. constantly upgraded. Cooperation possibilities might exist.

This mission will probably be useful The primary scientific goal of this for the world mission is to establish global space observatory Two Wide- connectivities and causal in the future. The Angle relationships between processes FY04 $1M Mission information: innovative Imaging in different regions of the To stereoscopically ($16M http://nis-www.lanl.gov/nis-projects/twins/ technology is the Neutral- magnetosphere. TWINS will image the 2003-04 expected NASA FY2004 Full budget sensibility of the atom extend our understanding of magnetosphere Life cycle http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/AN_Bu ENA instruments, Spectromet magnetospheric structure and by cost) dget_04_detail.html, August 20, 2003. and the ground ers providing simultaneous images processing tools (TWINS) from two widely separated to build the stereo locations over a broad ENA scientific energy range. information from to data sources.

A.31 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

USA - TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME National Oceanic and Microelectronics Atmospheric Administration High speed, Ultra-low Digital and 14-bit analog-to-digital converter, On-Board Data for digital and (NOAA), Department of Navy’s New Millenium power, radiation 1 A II Analogue Devices 2005-2006 ASIC implementation, radiation No information found Systems analogue Office of Naval Research Program: EO3 hardened, capable of 20 and technologies hardened to 1 Mrad, low power. applications (ONR) and advanced MSPS technology providers

RAD750 PowerPC as instrument controller. Single-board space PowerPC: low power computer in a 3U Compact PCI form. dissipation, latchup Provides computing power for immune, high throughout, Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier National Oceanic and stacked memory array: Transform Spectrometer. Stacked Hardware Atmospheric Administration low voltage, small size, memory array for buffering of On-Board Data Payload Data Technologies for (NOAA), Department of Navy’s New Millenium CULPRit: ultra-low poer 1 A II 2005-2006 measurement data. 1 Gigabyte, high- No information found Systems Processing Payload Data Office of Naval Research Program: EO3 CMOS device, radiation speed, dual-ported, error-corrected, Processing (ONR) and advanced shielding is low mass and temporary storage. CULPRit - technology providers incorporated into the downlink formatter board for GIFTS. composite or sprayed on, Radiation shielding - composite ultra-low power enclosure, spray-on and brush-on electronics coating for thermal and radiation protection, "modable" shielding.

Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL) and by the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The Software Development and verification of applicable missions given as On-Board Data Payload Data Technologies for MIT Space Systems 1 A III 2004 formation flight, rendezvous, docking reference are the “Air Force's SPHERES Systems Processing Payload Data Lab control and autonomy algorithms TechSat 21, DARPA’s Orbital Processing Express, and NASA's Starlight (formerly Space Technology 3) and Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF)

Precipitation Processing System Software (PPS), analyzing the data and On-Board Data Payload Data Technologies for 1 A III 2007 producing the products, and a set of NASA and NASDA No information found GPM Systems Processing Payload Data ground validation sites characterizing Processing the errors in the products.

A.32 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

Onboard science algorithms module: will analyze image data, generate Software Jet Propulsion Laboratory science products from that data, and On-board Data Payload data Technologies for (JPL); New Millenium 1 A III 2006 detect changes that have occurred No information found Systems processing Payload Data the University of Arizona; and Program: ST6 since previous observations. Processing Arizona State University Changes that are detected will trigger new data collection.

Onboard continuous planner: will Software Jet Propulsion Laboratory replan activities. It will also decide On-board Data Payload data Technologies for (JPL); New Millenium 1 A III 2006 when to send the data back to Earth, No information found Systems processing Payload Data the University of Arizona; and Program: ST6 based on science observations made Processing Arizona State University during previous orbits. ST5's nanosats will fly in a geostationary orbit in Earth's magnetosphere. The mission will use an existing commercial off-the-shelf Partnership with universities, Software software called SatTrack that has designated small businesses On-Board Data Payload Data Technologies for been fitted with new tools to through NASA’s Small Goddard Space Flight New Millenium 1 A III 2004 Systems Processing Payload Data autonomously perform scheduling Business programs, and other Center Program: ST5 Processing and daily orbit determination commercial technology functions. SatTrack is being providers redesigned to integrate with the ST5 Ground Data System (GDS) and ground network.

A.33 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Reprogrammable signal processor National Oceanic and consisting of a vector processor and Digital signal processing Atmospheric Administration a General Purpose Digital Signal functions use less On-Board Data On Board Data On board (NOAA), Department of Navy’s New Millenium 1 B II 2005-2006 Processor (DSP) for scalar math. No information found hardware, software Systems Management computers Office of Naval Research Program: EO3 Vector processor to perform Fast complexity is reduced, (ONR) and advanced Fourier Transforms and matrix/vector less volume, more power technology providers operations. RAD750 PowerPC as instrument controller. Single-board space PowerPC: low power computer in a 3U Compact PCI form. dissipation, latchup Provides computing power for immune, high throughout, GIFTS. Stacked memory array for National Oceanic and stacked memory array: Microelectronics buffering of measurement data. 1 Atmospheric Administration low voltage, small size, Digital and On-Board Data for digital and Gigabyte, high-speed, dual-ported, (NOAA); Department of Navy’s New Millenium CULPRit: ultra-low power 1 C II Analogue Devices 2005-2006 No information found Systems analogue error-corrected, temporary storage. Office of Naval Research Program: E03 CMOS device, radiation and technologies applications CULPRit - downlink formatter board (ONR), and advanced shielding is low mass and for GIFTS. Radiation shielding - technology providers incorporated into the composite enclosure, spray-on and composite or sprayed on, brush-on coating for thermal and ultra-low power radiation protection, "modable" electronics shielding. Ground Validation System and Inter- Space System Ground Segment 2 C 2006 Sensor Comparisons from Swath No information found No information found GPM Software Software: Intersection Events. ST5's nanosats will use Lithion-ion, or Li-ion, batteries, which use chemicals to store energy. Each cell Partnership with universities, of a Li-ion battery is equipped with a designated small businesses Power System Spacecraft Power System control circuit to limit the voltage through NASA’s Small Goddard Space Flight New Millenium 3 C Definition and I 2004 Power Architecture peaks during charge and to prevent Business programs, and other Center Program: ST5 Architecture the voltage from dropping too low on commercial technology discharge. This control circuit also providers limits the maximum charge and discharge current. Mitsubishi builds the ISAS has responsibility for the spacecraft with spacecraft and the optical Lockheed-Martin telescope. The science Advanced Technology instruments will be assembled Center on Space segment by the international partners. Smithsonian Space System Guidance High accuracy NASA's contribution would 5 B III 2004-05 0.1" Solar pointing and tracking Astrophysical SOLAR-B Control Navigation and pointing systems include the development of the Observatory, Control (GNC) vector magnetograph Cambridge, MA Germany is expected to Naval Research support the spectrograph, and Laboratory, the UK the X-ray/XUV Washington, DC), co- instruments. investigator

A.34 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Space segment Sensor calibration is achieved by Space System Guidance High accuracy September 5 B III dither and using the “aberration of Stanford University No information found Gravity Probe B Control Navigation and pointing systems 2003 starlight” phenomenon Control (GNC) Each ST5 nanosat x-band transponder will be approximately 2" x 2" x 3" and weigh less than 300 Partnership with universities, grams. Each transponder requires designated small businesses RF Payload TT&C only one-fourth the voltage and half through NASA’s Small Goddard Space Flight New Millenium: 6 A 2004 Systems Transponders as much power as its predecessors. Business programs, and other Center ST5 These transponders will commercial technology communicate with ground stations on providers Earth with 750 kilobit-per-second capability. High Data Rate Communications; Mars RF Payload Communication 6 B 2005 Data on bit rate were not available. No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Systems Systems (Ka Band) e Orbiter

The Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) is a 94-GHz nadir-looking radar which measures the power backscattered by clouds as a function of distance from the radar. The overall design of the CPR is simple, well understood, The CPR will be developed Microwave and has strong heritage from many RF Payload jointly by NASA/JPL and the 6 C Payload 2004 cloud radars already in operation in No information found CloudSAT Systems Canadian Space Agency Technologies ground-based and airborne (CSA). applications. Most of the design parameters and subsystem configurations are nearly identical to those for the Airborne Cloud Radar, which has been flying on the NASA DC-8 aircraft since 1998.

Flight Dynamics Aerobraking; Performance Mars 10 (FD) & Precise A Flight Dynamics I FD Measurement 2005 characteristics are To Be Determined No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Navigation (TBD). e Orbiter

Flight Dynamics Mars FD State Aerobraking; Performance 10 (FD) & Precise A Flight Dynamics II 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Estimation characteristics are TBD. Navigation e Orbiter

Flight Dynamics FD Trajectory and Mars Aerobraking; Performance 10 (FD) & Precise A Flight Dynamics III Manoeuvre 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc characteristics are TBD. Navigation concepts e Orbiter

Flight Dynamics Mars FD AOCS Aerobraking; Performance 10 (FD) & Precise A Flight Dynamics IV 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Parameters characteristics are TBD. Navigation e Orbiter

A.35 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Flight Dynamics Mars FD Mission Aerobraking; Performance 10 (FD) & Precise A Flight Dynamics V 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Planning characteristics are TBD. Navigation e Orbiter

Flight Dynamics Mars Aerobraking; Performance 10 (FD) & Precise A Flight Dynamics VI FD Services 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc characteristics are TBD. Navigation e Orbiter

Flight Dynamics Mars Aerobraking; Performance 10 (FD) & Precise A Flight Dynamics VII FD Systems 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc characteristics are TBD. Navigation e Orbiter

Flight Dynamics Mars Precise Aerobraking; Performance 10 (FD) & Precise B III PN Algorithms kesä.05 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Navigation characteristics are TBD. Navigation e Orbiter

Flight Dynamics Mars Precise Aerobraking; Performance 10 (FD) & Precise B IV PN Services 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Navigation characteristics are TBD. Navigation e Orbiter Robotic Manipulation of samples; Automation, Manipulation take core sample; transfer core Mars Science 13 Telepresence, & B Robot Systems I 2009 No information found No information found Systems sample to analysis chamber. No Laboratory Robotics further requirements at this time. Scooping and manipulation of Automation, surface samples; a robotic arm will Manipulation Phoenix Scout 13 Telepresence, & B Robot Systems I 2007 be capable of scooping down to 3.3 No information found No information found Systems Mission Robotics feet. Technique and sample size is To Be Determined (TBD). Long planetary traverses; will be required to travel to new location Automation, (<20m) to analyze new samples; Mars Science 13 Telepresence, & B Robot Systems II Mobility Systems 2009 No information found No information found Total traverse distance could be up Laboratory Robotics to 30 km if nuclear power source is chosen. Automation, Payload Long periods without human Payload Mars Science 13 Telepresence, & C Automation and II 2009 interaction; duration to be determined No information found No information found Autonomy Laboratory Robotics Control Systems (TBD). Instrumentation Life &Physical Sensors and in support of MVIC panchromatic and 4-color CCD 14 Science B I Analytical 2006-2007 No information found Ball Aerospace New Horizons Physical imager (0.4-1.0 um,20 urad/pixel Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences Instrumentation Life &Physical Sensors and LEISA near IR imaging spectrometer in support of Goddard Space Flight 14 Science B I Analytical 2006-2007 (62 urad/pixel resolution, 1.25-2.50 No information found No information found New Horizons Physical Center Instrumentation Instrumentation um) Sciences

A.36 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Instrumentation Life &Physical Sensors and ALICE UV imaging spectrometer(520- in support of Southwest Research Institute 14 Science B I Analytical 2006-2007 1870A, spectral resolution 3 A, 5 No information found New Horizons Physical (SwRI) Instrumentation Instrumentation milliradians/pixel angular resolution) Sciences Atmospheric sounding, flyby target mass measurements, and passive Instrumentation Life &Physical Sensors and surface radiometry. Signal/noise in support of 14 Science B I Analytical 2006-2007 power spectral density 55 db-Hz; Stanford, APL No information found New Horizons Physical Instrumentation Instrumentation ultrastable oscillator stability 1*10-13 Sciences in 1 second samples. Disk-averaged radiometry to ± 0.1K Instrumentation SWAP plasma spectrometer (up to Life &Physical Sensors and in support of 6.5 kev, toroidal electrostatic Southwest Research Institute 14 Science B I Analytical 2006-2007 No information found New Horizons Physical analyser and retarding potential (SwRI) Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences analyser) Instrumentation PESPSSI high energy particle Life &Physical Sensors and in support of spectrometer (ions: 1-3000 keV, 14 Science B I Analytical 2006-2007 APL No information found New Horizons Physical electros 25-700 keV, time-of-flight by Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences energy to separate pickup ions) Instrumentation Life &Physical Sensors and Panchromatic, narrow angle CCD in support of 14 Science B I Analytical 2006-2007 imager, 0.03-0.95 microns, 5 APL No information found New Horizons Physical Instrumentation Instrumentation microradians/pixel Sciences Instrumentation Life &Physical Sensors and Dust impact counter sensitive to in support of 14 Science B I Analytical 2006-2007 impacts>10-12 grams. 0.25m2 No information found No information found New Horizons Physical Instrumentation Instrumentation collection area Sciences Instrumentation Earth Polychromatic Imaging Scripps Institution of Life &Physical Sensors and in support of Camera (EPIC) 10 different Oceanography; 14 Science B I Analytical TBD No information found DSCVR Physical wavelengths ranging from the University of California, San Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences Ultraviolet to near infrared Diego

A.37 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Scripps-NISTAR, composed of three cavity radiometers and one Photodiode channel, to measure the energy emitted and reflected by the Earth with an accuracy of 0.1% 1. A visible plus far infrared (0.2 to 100m) channel to measure total radiant power in the UV, visible, and Instrumentation infrared wavelengths. Scripps Institution of Life &Physical Sensors and in support of 2. A solar (0.2 to 4m) channel to Oceanography; 14 Science B I Analytical TBD No information found DSCVR Physical measure reflected solar radiance in University of California, San Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences the UV, visible and near infrared Diego wavelengths. 3. A near infrared (0.7 to 4m) channel to measure reflected IR solar radiance. 4. A photodiode (0.3 to 1m) channel to be used as an on-board calibration reference for the Scripps-NISTAR instrument Instrumentation Scripps Institution of Life &Physical Sensors and in support of Plasma-Mag Solar-Weather Oceanography; 14 Science B I Analytical TBD No information found DSCVR Physical Instruments University of California, San Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences Diego The program architecture of GPM is new. The mission will feature a 3-ton- Instrumentation class core spacecraft, instrumented Life & Physical Sensors and in support of with a Dual-frequency Precipitation 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2007 NASA and NASDA No information found GPM Physical Radar (DPR) and the GPM Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences Microwave Imager (GMI), and a constellation of precipitation- measuring spacecraft,

GASMAP—part of Flight Rack 1; “Gas analyser System for Metabolic Analysis of Physiology”; initial Part of the ISS HRF (Human component of Pulmonary Function Research Facility) Rack 1 HRF also includes System; for quantifying inspired and (launched on 5A.1 in March hardware from: ESA (one Life & Physical Instrumentation Sensors and expired gases, to be used with 2001; currently on ISS –US of which (Mares) also 14 Sciences A in support of Life I analytical 2008 No information found Integrity exercise equipment or as stand lab). Other HRF Rack 1 involves Lockheed Martin Instrumentation Sciences instrumentation alone system. GASMAP will archive components include the Power participation), DLR, data for post-flight analysis, or Supply, Stowed Hardware, NASDA. provide real-time data for downlink. HRF Common Software. Interface: spirometer. Mass of 183.02 +33.65kg. Power 145-270W.

A.38 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Gas Delivery System—part of Flight Flight Rack 2 will have Rack 2; respiratory physiology To be integrated with ESA- multiple components: Gas Life & Physical Instrumentation Sensors and instrumentation; will be used as sub- provided Pulmonary Function delivery System, 14 Sciences A in support of Life I analytical 2008 component of Pulmonary Function Module/Photo Acoustic No information found Integrity Pulmonary Function Instrumentation Sciences instrumentation System. Has no power or data analyser, thus replacing System, Rack 2 interface. Will accommodate 5 gas GASMAP. Workstation, 8 Panel Unit cylinders. Storage Drawer. Flight Rack 2 will have Space Linear Acceleration Mass multiple components: Gas Measurement Device Life & Physical Instrumentation Sensors and delivery System, (SLAMMD)—part of Flight Rack 2; 14 Sciences A in support of Life I analytical 2008 No information found No information found Integrity Pulmonary Function for accurate measurement of on-orbit Instrumentation Sciences instrumentation System, Rack 2 mass of humans. Will be rack- Workstation, 8 Panel Unit mounted, rack-powered. Storage Drawer. Ultrasound—part of Flight Rack 1; for wide range of applications (research Imaging & diagnostic). High resolution Life & Physical Instrumentation diagnostics and imaging, multiple imaging modes, 14 Sciences A in support of Life II 2008 No information found No information found Integrity image treatment multifrequency capabilities, digital Instrumentation Sciences technologies output/storage, expandable. May be rack-powered. Mass 76 + 10kg. Power 994-1004W. Refrigerate Centrifuge—part of Flight Life & Physical Instrumentation Rack 2; used to separate biological Cultivation and 14 Sciences A in support of Life III 2008 substances of differing densities at No information found No information found Integrity (bio) processing Instrumentation Sciences rotor chamber temperature of 4 degrees C. NASA Goddard Space The Johns Hopkins Flight Center’s Solar University Applied Terrestrial Probes Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI): Physics Laboratory in Instrumentation Program Office Sensors and Provides full Sun coverage with twice Laurel, Md., is Life & Physical in support of SubMissions of STEREO 14 B I Analytical 2005 the spatial resolution and No information found designing, building and STEREO Sciences Physical are SECCHI, SWAVES, Instrumentation dramatically improved cadence over will operate the twin Sciences IMPACT, PLASTIC EIT. observatories for NASA EUVI is one of the four during the 2-year instruments of mission. STEREO/SECCHI Heliospheric Imager (HI): The most novel instrument, HI extends the concept of traditional externally Naval Research Instrumentation Sensors and occulted coronagraphs to a new Laboratory, HI is one of the four Life & Physical in support of 14 B I Analytical 2005 regime–the heliosphere from the Sun No information found Washington, D.C., STEREO instruments of Sciences Physical Instrumentation to the Earth (12-318 Rsun). HI will Naval Research STEREO/SECCHI Sciences obtain the first direct imaging Laboratory, Washington observations of coronal mass ejections in interplanetary space

A.39 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME STE is a new instrument that covers electrons in the energy range ~2-20 keV which are present as a superhalo on the solar wind electrons, and as CME shock- Instrumentation accelerated, or flare-accelerated Sensors and STE is one of the six Life & Physical in support of populations extending beyond the University of California, 14 B I Analytical 2005 No information found STEREO instruments of Sciences Physical SWEA range. STE utilizes passively Berkeley Instrumentation STEREO/IMPACT Sciences cooled silicon semiconductor devices (SSDs) which measure all energies simultaneously. The STE consists of two arrays of four SSDs in a row, each ~0.1 cm2 area and ~500 microns thick.

The magnetometer (MAG) system is a simplified version of the magnetometers flown on Mars Global Surveyor and Lunar Prospector. It is a triaxial fluxgate Instrumentation Sensors and design that will be mounted on the MAG is one of the six Life & Physical in support of University of California, 14 B I Analytical 2005 STEREO ~4m boom just inboard of No information found STEREO instruments of Sciences Physical Berkeley Instrumentation the SWEA and STE instruments. The STEREO/IMPACT Sciences fluxgate sensors use a ring core geometry, with magnetic cores consisting of molybdenum alloy. The units are compact, low power, and ultra-stable.

SEPT consists of two dual, double- ended magnet/foil solid state detector particle telescopes that cleanly separate and measure electrons in the energy range 20-400 keV and protons from 20-7000 keV, Instrumentation Sensors and while providing anisotropy SEPT is one of the six Life & Physical in support of University of California, 14 B I Analytical 2005 information through use of several No information found STEREO instruments of Sciences Physical Berkeley Instrumentation fields of view. Each SSD detector in STEREO/IMPACT Sciences SEPT is 300 microns thick and 0.53 cm2 in area. A rare-earth permanent magnet is used to sweep away electrons for ion detection, while a parylene foil transmits electrons but stops protons.

A.40 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME LET is a special double-fan arrangement of 14 solid state detectors designed to measure protons and helium ions from ~1.5 to Instrumentation Sensors and 13 MeV/nucleon, and heavier ions LET is one of the six Life & Physical in support of University of California, 14 B I Analytical 2005 from ~2 to 30 MeV/nucleon. LET No information found STEREO instruments of Sciences Physical Berkeley Instrumentation uses a standard dE/dx vs. E STEREO/IMPACT Sciences technique, identifying particles that stop at depths of ~20-70 microns and ~70-2000 microns corresponding to two general energy ranges.

HET also uses the solid state detector, dE/dx vs. E approach, but in a six-detector, more traditional Instrumentation Sensors and linear arrangement designed to HET is one of the six Life & Physical in support of University of California, 14 B I Analytical 2005 measure protons and helium ions to No information found STEREO instruments of Sciences Physical Berkeley Instrumentation 100 MeV/nucleon, and energetic STEREO/IMPACT Sciences electrons to 5 MeV. HET identifies particles that stop at depths of 1 to 8 mm in the detectors.

SWEA is designed to measure the Instrumentation distribution function of the solar wind Sensors and SWEA is one of the six Life & Physical in support of core and halo electrons from below University of California, 14 B I Analytical 2005 No information found STEREO instruments of Sciences Physical an eV to several keV, with high Berkeley Instrumentation STEREO/IMPACT Sciences spectral and angular resolution over practically the full spherical range. Mitsubishi builds the spacecraft with ISAS has responsibility for the Lockheed-Martin spacecraft and the optical Advanced Technology telescope. The science Center on Instrumentation Life&Physical Sensors and instruments will be assembled Smithsonian in support of Development of the vector 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 by the international partners. Astrophysical SOLAR-B Physical magnetograph Instrumentation Instrumentation Germany is expected to Observatory, Sciences support the spectrograph, and Cambridge, MA the UK the X-ray/XUV Naval Research instruments. Laboratory, Washington, DC), co- investigator

A.41 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Mitsubishi builds the ISAS has responsibility for the spacecraft with spacecraft and the optical Lockheed-Martin telescope. The science Advanced Technology instruments will be assembled Center on Instrumentation by the international partners. Life&Physical Sensors and Smithsonian in support of NASA's contribution would 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 Space-qualified linear polarimeters Astrophysical SOLAR-B Physical include the development of the Instrumentation Instrumentation Observatory, Sciences vector magnetograph Cambridge, MA Germany is expected to Naval Research support the spectrograph, and Laboratory, the UK the X-ray/XUV Washington, DC), co- instruments. investigator Mitsubishi builds the ISAS has responsibility for the spacecraft with spacecraft and the optical Lockheed-Martin telescope. The science Advanced Technology instruments will be assembled Center on Instrumentation by the international partners. Life&Physical Sensors and Smithsonian in support of Ultra-high spatial resolution optics NASA's contribution would 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 Astrophysical SOLAR-B Physical and detectors include the development of the Instrumentation Instrumentation Observatory, Sciences vector magnetograph Cambridge, MA Germany is expected to Naval Research support the spectrograph, and Laboratory, the UK the X-ray/XUV Washington, DC), co- instruments. investigator Mitsubishi builds the ISAS has responsibility for the spacecraft with spacecraft and the optical Lockheed-Martin telescope. The science Advanced Technology instruments will be assembled Center on Instrumentation by the international partners. Life&Physical Sensors and Smithsonian in support of Multi-layer gratings and coatings NASA's contribution would 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 Astrophysical SOLAR-B Physical from SERTS include the development of the Instrumentation Instrumentation Observatory, Sciences vector magnetograph Cambridge, MA Germany is expected to Naval Research support the spectrograph, and Laboratory, the UK the X-ray/XUV Washington, DC), co- instruments. investigator

A.42 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

ISAS has responsibility for the spacecraft and the optical telescope. The science instruments will be assembled by the international partners. NASA's contribution would Solar Optical Telescope (SOT): include the development of the Instrumentation Life&Physical Sensors and Gregorian or Cassegrain, 50cm vector magnetograph Lockheed-Martin in support of 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 aperture, light weight glass Germany is expected to Advanced Technology SOLAR-B Physical Instrumentation Instrumentation composite support the spectrograph, and Center Sciences the UK the X-ray/XUV instruments. Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC), co- investigator

A.43 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Mitsubishi builds the ISAS has responsibility for the spacecraft with spacecraft and the optical Lockheed-Martin telescope. The science Advanced Technology Focal Plane Package (FPP) instruments will be assembled Center on Instrumentation Spectrograph: by the international partners. Life&Physical Sensors and Smithsonian in support of Littrow type echelle. Spectral NASA's contribution would 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 Astrophysical SOLAR-B Physical resolution 2.0nm include the development of the Instrumentation Instrumentation Observatory, Sciences Data: Detailed Stokes line profiles of vector magnetograph Cambridge, MA intensity and polarization Germany is expected to Naval Research support the spectrograph, and Laboratory, the UK the X-ray/XUV Washington, DC), co- instruments. investigator Mitsubishi builds the ISAS has responsibility for the spacecraft with spacecraft and the optical Lockheed-Martin telescope. The science Advanced Technology X-Ray Telescope (XRT): instruments will be assembled Center on Instrumentation Wavelength Range: 2,0 to 60.0 Å, by the international partners. Life&Physical Sensors and Smithsonian in support of Angular Resolution: 1.0 to 2.5 arcsec NASA's contribution would 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 Astrophysical SOLAR-B Physical Field of View: Full or partial disk, include the development of the Instrumentation Instrumentation Observatory, Sciences Data: Coronal Images at different vector magnetograph Cambridge, MA temperatures Germany is expected to Naval Research support the spectrograph, and Laboratory, the UK the X-ray/XUV Washington, DC), co- instruments. investigator Mitsubishi builds the ISAS has responsibility for the spacecraft with spacecraft and the optical Lockheed-Martin EUV Imaging Spectrograph (EIS): telescope. The science Advanced Technology Pixel Size: 1.5 arcsec x 0.002nm, instruments will be assembled Center on Instrumentation Field of View: 400 arcsec by the international partners. Life&Physical Sensors and Smithsonian in support of Wavelength Range: 25-29nm, NASA's contribution would 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 Astrophysical SOLAR-B Physical Temperature Range: 1 x 10e5 - 2 x include the development of the Instrumentation Instrumentation Observatory, Sciences 10e7 K vector magnetograph Cambridge, MA Data: Doppler line widths and shifts Germany is expected to Naval Research and monochromatic images support the spectrograph, and Laboratory, the UK the X-ray/XUV Washington, DC), co- instruments. investigator

A.44 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME The Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) uses a technique called coded aperture imaging to image and localize incoming gamma-rays. Swift's coded aperture mask sits 1- BAT is one of three Instrumentation Life&Physical Sensors and meter from the detector plane, and is instruments aboard in support of January 14 Sciences B I Analytical made from about 54,000 lead tiles No information found No information found Swift SWIFT Physical 2004 Instrumentation Instrumentation arranged in a random half-open/half- Goddard Space Flight Sciences closed pattern. The mask casts a Center shadow on the detector plane. Using the position of the shadow, the computers can determine the direction of the gamma-ray source. The BAT detector plane consists of 32,768 pieces of 4 x 4 x 2 mm cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT). These CZT detectors are arranged into a BAT is one of three Instrumentation Life&Physical Sensors and four-tiered hierarchical structure. instruments aboard in support of January 14 Sciences B I Analytical Arrays of 8 x 16 CZT detectors are No information found No information found Swift SWIFT Physical 2004 Instrumentation Instrumentation arranged by two’s into detector Goddard Space Flight Sciences modules. Eight such modules are Center combined to form a detector block, and sixteen blocks make up the entire detector plane. The Swift Xray Telescope (XRT) will utilize the FM3 mirror set built, qualified, and calibrated in the JET-X program. The effective area and BAT is one of three Instrumentation Life&Physical Sensors and Point Spread Function of the mirrors instruments aboard in support of January 14 Sciences B I Analytical have been measured for a variety of No information found No information found Swift SWIFT Physical 2004 Instrumentation Instrumentation energies and off-axis angles. The Goddard Space Flight Sciences XRT on-axis resolution will be about Center 15 arcseconds HPD for off-axis angles below 12 arcminutes telescope. Electron Deflection Magnets near the BAT is one of three Instrumentation rear face of the mirrors which will Life&Physical Sensors and instruments aboard in support of January prevent electrons from reaching the 14 Sciences B I Analytical No information found No information found Swift SWIFT Physical 2004 detector system. These magnets will Instrumentation Instrumentation Goddard Space Flight Sciences be arranged to have a near-zero Center dipole moment.

A.45 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME The UltraViolet and Optical Telescope (UVOT) is a diffraction- limited 30 cm (12" aperture) Ritchey- Chretien reflector, sensitive to magnitude 24 in a 17 minute exposure. BAT is one of three Instrumentation Life&Physical Sensors and It is a 30 cm diameter modified instruments aboard in support of January 14 Sciences B I Analytical Ritchey-Chrétien telescope with an No information found No information found Swift SWIFT Physical 2004 Instrumentation Instrumentation f/2.0 primary that is re-imaged to f/13 Goddard Space Flight Sciences by the secondary. This results in Center pixels that are 0.5 arcsec over 17 arcmin square FOV. The filter wheel includes a 4x magnifier that results in 0.12 arcsec pixels for near diffraction limited imaging. The detectors of the UVOT are copies of two micro-channel plate intensified CCD (MIC) detectors from the XMM OM design. They are BAT is one of three Instrumentation photon counting devices capable of Life&Physical Sensors and instruments aboard in support of January detecting very low signal levels, 14 Sciences B I Analytical No information found No information found Swift SWIFT Physical 2004 allowing the UVOT to detect faint Instrumentation Instrumentation Goddard Space Flight Sciences objects over 170-650 nm. The design Center is able to operate in a photon counting mode, unaffected by CCD read noise and cosmic ray events on the CCD. The Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) uses a technique called coded aperture imaging to image and localize incoming gamma-rays. Swift's coded aperture mask sits 1- BAT is one of three Instrumentation Life&Physical Sensors and meter from the detector plane, and is instruments aboard in support of January 14 Sciences B I Analytical made from about 54,000 lead tiles No information found No information found Swift SWIFT Physical 2004 Instrumentation Instrumentation arranged in a random half-open/half- Goddard Space Flight Sciences closed pattern. The mask casts a Center shadow on the detector plane. Using the position of the shadow, the computers can determine the direction of the gamma-ray source.

A.46 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME The innovative technology is the sensibility of the ENA instruments, and the ground processing tools to build the stereo scientific information Instrumentation Life&Physical Sensors and from to data sources. The Los Alamos National in support of 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2003-04 Neutral atom imager covering the ~1- Laboratory is leading the No information found TWINS Physical Instrumentation Instrumentation 100 keV energy range with 4ox4o national design team. Sciences angular resolution and 1-minute time resolution, and a simple Lyman- alpha imager to monitor the geocorona. Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS): This instrument consists of wide-angle and narrow-angle imagers that will map landforms, Instrumentation track variations in surface spectra Life & Physical Sensors and in support of and gather topographic information. 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004 No information found No information found MESSENGER Physical The wide-angle camera (WAC) has a Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences 10.5° field of view (FOV) , the phase angle of 32°. The narrow angle camera (NAC) has a 1.5° FOV. Due to thermal constraints, only one camera will operate at a time. Gamma-Ray and Neutron Spectrometer (GRNS): This Instrumentation instrument will detect gamma rays Life & Physical Sensors and in support of and neutrons that are emitted by 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004 No information found No information found MESSENGER Physical radioactive elements on Mercury's Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences surface or by surface elements that have been stimulated by cosmic rays. 3. X-Ray Spectrometer (XRS): XRS Instrumentation Life & Physical Sensors and will detect the emitted X-rays to in support of 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004 measure the abundances of various No information found No information found MESSENGER Physical Instrumentation Instrumentation elements in the materials of Sciences Mercury's crust. 4. Magnetometer (MAG): This Instrumentation instrument is at the end of a 3.6 Life & Physical Sensors and in support of meter(nearly 12-foot) boom, and will 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004 No information found No information found MESSENGER Physical map Mercury 's magnetic field and Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences will search for regions of magnetized rocks in the crust.

A.47 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME 6. Mercury Atmospheric and Surface Composition Spectrometer Instrumentation (MASCS[5,11]): This spectrometer is Life & Physical Sensors and in support of sensitive to light from the infrared to 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004 No information found No information found MESSENGER Physical the ultraviolet and will measure the Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences abundances of atmospheric gases, as well as detect minerals on the surface. 7. Energetic Particle and Plasma Instrumentation Spectrometer (EPPS): EPPS Life & Physical Sensors and in support of measures the composition, 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004 No information found No information found MESSENGER Physical distribution, and energy of charged Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences particles (electrons and various ions) in Mercury's magnetosphere. Focal Plane Package (FPP) Vector Magnetograph: Magnetic Lines: 525.0nm FeI; 630.2nm FeI, Continuum: 524.6nm, Velocity: 532.4nm FeI Field of View: 164x164 arcsec Instrumentation Smithsonian Life&Physical Sensors and squared in support of Astrophysical 14 Sciences B I Analytical 2004-05 Magnetic Sensitivity: B(longitudinal) No information found SOLAR-B Physical Observatory, Instrumentation Instrumentation = 1-5G, B(transverse) = 30-50G Sciences Cambridge, MA Temporal Resolution: 5 min., Detectable change in active region magnetic energy: 10e30 erg Data: Time series of photospheric vector magnetograms, Doppler velocity and photospheric intensity

Core GMI Calibration will be used as a Reference Standard for the Instrumentation Constellation Member Radiometers. Life &Physical Sensors and in support of GPM plans External Calibration 14 Science B I Analytical 2006 No information found No information found GPM Physical Techniques for Calibrating the Core Instrumentation Instrumentation Sciences GMIGround Validation System and Inter-Sensor Comparisons from Swath Intersection Events. HRF PC—part of Flight Rack 1; for executing HRF software to perform tasks (command & control, experiment data collection & storage, Integration of Life & Physical System data downlink & uplink, crew notes & sensors and 14 Sciences C (instrument) I 2008 tests, HRF equipment tests). No information found No information found Integrity analytical Instrumentation technology Expandable; uses 166MHz Intel instrumentation Pentium processor. Stowable in HRF Rack utility drawer; transportable. Mass 1.6kg. Power 39W.

A.48 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Integration of Workstation—part of Flight Rack 1; Life & Physical System sensors and for supporting experiments. Rack- 14 Sciences C (instrument) I 2008 No information found No information found Integrity analytical mounted, multi-purpose, high-end Instrumentation technology instrumentation computer. Provides mass storage. Mechanics & 15 A Actuators I Linear Actuators 2010 Cryogenic mirror actuators No information found No information found JWST Tribology Autonomous pointing and control for geolocation and image stabilization. Employs dual head star tracker and National Oceanic and Active Pixel Sensor (APS) for visible Atmospheric Administration Better accuracy tracking Detector and Optics & Opto- imaging. The star tracker is a dual- (NOAA), Department of Navy’s New Millenium: with high update rate, low 15 B Opto-electronics IV detector array 2005-2006 No information found Electronics head, signal detector tracker to Office of Naval Research EO3 mass and volume, ultra- technologies provide attitude information for (ONR) and advanced low power accurate pointing. The APS is a technology providers 512x512 visible pixel array, single- chip imager.

The telescope is made of cold fused Pointing, quartz (unusually stable) in zero-g. Pointing and Mechanisms & positioning and September Optical contacting (molecular 15 D I Positioning Stanford University No information found Gravity Probe B Tribology scanning 2003 adhesion between perfectly flat and technologies mechanisms clean surfaces) holds the twenty different telescope parts together.

Attitude & Control Mechanisms & Control September Ultra accurate gyroscopes stable to 15 E Mechanism and II Stanford University No information found Gravity Probe B Tribology momentum gyros 2003 10-11 degrees/hour Energy storage Cryogenic Mechanisms & Payload September 15 K Mechanism I No information found Stanford University No information found Gravity Probe B Tribology Mechanisms 2003 Technologies Superconductivity is used to solve the gyroscope issues of electrical suspension, magnetic readout, and Mechanisms & Cryogenic September 15 N Tribology VI gas spin-up. The gyroscopes are Stanford University No information found Gravity Probe B Tribology Tribology 2003 protected from most external electromagnetic radiation by four lead balloons Micro/Nano Mechanics & 15 O Technology 2010 Microshutters No information found No information found JWST Tribology Systems Must land in a relatively precise Mechanisms Entry/Descent, Mars Science 15 R 2009 location; footprint TBD. Precision No information found No information found and Tribiology Landing Devices Laboratory Landing and Hazard Avoidance

A.49 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Laser Ranging Polarization (CALIOP) is a two- Optics & Opto- and imaging, wavelength (532 nm and 1064 nm) 16 A Optics I 2004 Hampton University Ball Aerospace Calipso Electronics including polarization-sensitive lidar that altimeters provides high-resolution vertical profiles of aerosols and clouds. NASA Langley Research Overall optical CALIPSO will fly a three-channel Center, Centre National Optics & Opto- system definition, lidar and passive instruments to 16 A Optics I 2004 d'Etudes Spatiales, Hampton No information found Calipso Electronics design and provide key measurements of University, and Institut Pierre engineering aerosol and cloud properties. Simon Laplace ultrahigh stability/precision of lasers, Space Optics&Opto- 16 A Optics I Laser technology 2009 modulators and metrology gauges No information found No information found Interferometry Electronics required Mission 2003 Telescope: 1) Made of new material: launched Light weight-beryllium Total weight 16 Optics A Optics III Optical telescope Jet Propulsion Laboratory No information found SIRTF successfull <50kg 2) operational at cryogenic y temperatures (few Kelvin) Department of Navy’s Office of Silicon carbide mirrors and Optical telescope Naval Research (ONR), Optics & Opto- composite structures in telescope. New Millenium 16 A Optics III and optical bench 2005-2006 academic, and industry No information found Electronics High specific stiffness, excellent Program: EO3 technologies partners are developing these thermal stability, low CTE technologies. The telescope uses folded optics of a Optical telescope design elaborated from traditional Optics & Opto- September 16 A Optics III and optical bench Cassegrainian astronomical Stanford University No information found Gravity Probe B Electronics 2003 technologies telescopes with a greater focal length.

advanced optical technology: that produces robust and extremely light weight, large-aperture mirrors: Optical telescope 1) sensitivity 1-5 microns (0.6-30 Optics&Opto- Candidate: 16 A Optics III and optical bench 2010 extended). No information found JWST Electronics Kodak technologies 2) limited to 2 microns. 3) Operation temperature 30-60 K 4) areal density of less than 15 kg/m2.

Optical components, Optics & Opto- 16 A Optics IV including micro- 2010 Folding segmented mirror No information found No information found JWST Electronics optics and MOEMS Detector and Low noise HgCdTe or InSb detectors The Independent Testing Optics & Opto- 16 A Optics IV detector array 2010 (NIR), low noise Si:As IBC detectors Laboratory, University of No information found JWST Electronics technologies (MIR) Hawaii, University of Rochester

A.50 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME The Wide-Field Camera (WFC) is a Optical equipment fixed, nadir-viewing imager with a technology, single spectral channel covering the including, Optics & Opto- 620-670 nm region. The WFC is 16 A Optics VI cameras, 2004 No information found Ball Aerospace Calipso Electronics operated in a push-broom mode, Illumination collecting images with 125-meter devices, displays, spatial resolution over a 61-km cross- etc track. Optical equipment High Resolution Imaging and technology Descent Imaging; the high resolution including imagery will allow scientists to Optics & Opto- Phoenix Scout 16 A Optics VI cameras, 2007 examine samples as small as 10 University of Arizona Malin Space Systems Electronics Mission illumination nanometers; performance devices, displays, characteristics of the descent etc imagery are TBD.

Optical equipment technology ITS:CCD Camera to navigate the There are 3 cameras on including Optics and Opto- December impactor to the comet’s nucleus; Ball Aerospace and this mission: HRI, MRI (on 16 A Optics VI cameras, No information found Deep Impact Electronics 2004 Imaging at a precision of .5 meters Technologies Corp. flyby spacecraft), ITS(on Illumination per pixel at time of impact; impactor) devices, displays, etc

Optical equipment technology including MRI (on flyby spacecraft):Multi- Optics and Opto- December Ball Aerospace and 16 A Optics VI cameras, spectral CCD camera,Functional No information found Deep Impact Electronics 2004 Technologies Corp. Illumination backup of HRI devices, displays, etc

Optical equipment technology including HRI (on flyby spacecraft):Multi- Optics and Opto- December Ball Aerospace and 16 A Optics VI cameras, spectral CCD camera(resol. 2m per No information found Deep Impact Electronics 2004 Technologies Corp. Illumination pixel at a distance of 700km) devices, displays, etc

Optical equipment technology, High Resolution Imagery– 30- including Mars Optics and Opto- 60cm/pixel; monochromatic; 3-6 km 16 A Optics VI cameras, 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Electronics swath widths from 200-400 km illumination e Orbiter altitude. devices, displays, etc

A.51 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME FORCAST: Using the latest 256x256 Si:As and Si:Sb blocked-impurity- band detector array technology to Optics&Optoele provide high-sensitivity wide-field 16 A Optics VI cameras 2005 Cornell University No information found SOFIA ctronics imaging, FORCAST will sample at 0.75 arcsec/pixel giving a 3.2 arcmin x 3.2 arcmin instantaneous field-of- view. 5. Mercury Laser Altimeter (MLA): Laser Ranging This instrument contains a laser that Optics & Opto- and imaging, will send light to the planet’s surface 16 A Optics VII kesä.05 No information found No information found MESSENGER Electronics including and a sensor that will gather the light altimeters after it has been reflected from the surface. Laser Ranging Laser Altimeter; Topographic profiles Optics & Opto- and imaging, 16 A Optics VII May 2006 at 50 cm vertical and 30 m horizontal No information found No information found Dawn Electronics including accuracy. altimeters Department of Navy’s Office of Interferometry, Cryogenic imaging interferometer Radiometric performance Naval Research (ONR), Optics & Opto- aperture synthesis with spatial sampling systems New Millenium exceeds previously 16 A Optics IX 2005-2006 academic, and industry No information found Electronics and optical optimized for two-dimensional Program: EO3 demonstrated imaging partners are developing these phased arrays imaging. FTS systems technologies. Interferometry, Space Optics&Opto- aperture synthesis unreached accuracy: pathlength 16 A Optics IX 2009 No information found No information found Interferometry Electronics and optical control of 10 nanometers Mission phased arrays

2. CrIS) is a Michelson interferometer infrared sounder designed to measure scene radiance and calculate the vertical distribution Interferometry, of temperature, moisture, and NPOESS Optics & Opto- aperture synthesis pressure in the Earth's atmosphere. 16 A Optics IX 2005 No information found No information found Preparatory Electronics and optical CrIS was designed to work in unison Project phased arrays with the Advanced technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS), together they create the Cross-track Infrared Microwave Sounding Suite (CrIMSS). Space Optics&Opto- High Precision 50 picometer metrology, 10 16 A Optics X heinä.05 No information found No information found Interferometry Electronics Optical Metrology nanometer control Mission

A.52 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME GIFTS (Geosynchronous Imaging Department of Navy’s Office of Fourier Transform Spectrometer) is a Naval Research (ONR), Optics & Opto- Spectrometers technologically advanced imaging New Millenium 16 A Optics XI 2005-2006 academic, and industry No information found Electronics and Radiometers spectrometer that will incorporate the Program: EO3 partners are developing these key elements of an optical remote technologies. sensing system. 1. ATMS - Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder, ATMS is a total- power radiometer with cross track scanning. ATMS' temperature sounding channels have 2.2 degree beams and are nyquist-sampled in NPOESS Optics & Opto- Spectrometers 16 A Optics XI 2005 both cross-track and down-track No information found No information found Preparatory Electronics and Radiometers directions. ATMS uses a stable Project onboard through-the-lens (Hot-cold) two point calibration. For each rotation the instrument makes, it passes 2 distict point of califration to keep the sensor measuring correctly. Mapping Spectrometer Gamma Ray and mapping provided by the Institute for Optics & Opto- Spectrometers spectrometer; mapping spectrometer Space Astrophysics; Gamma 16 A Optics XI May 2006 No information found Dawn Electronics and Radiometers operates in 3 bands: .35-.9 micron, .8 Ray spectrometer provided by 2.5 micron, 2.4-5.0 micron. Los Alamos National Laboratory Optics & Opto- Spectrometers Mineral and elemental identification; Mars Science 16 A Optics XI 2009 No information found No information found Electronics and Radiometers sensitivity is TBD. Laboratory 3.VIIRS is an evolved form of the MODIS sensor utilizing more bands NPOESS Optics & Opto- Spectrometers and more refined and advanced 16 A Optics XI 2005 No information found No information found Preparatory Electronics and radiometers algorithms. VIIRS' optical path is a 3- Project Mirror Anastigmat Rotating Telescope with 360 -degree rotation.

The OCO payload consists of three classical grating spectrometers and acquires data in three different measurement modes. The instrument views the ground directly in Nadir Mode, and views the location Optics & Opto- Spectrometers where sunlight is directly reflected on Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Orbiting Carbon 16 A Optics XI 2007 Hamilton Sunstrand Electronics and radiometers the Earth's surface in Glint Mode Hamilton Sunstrand Observatory which enhances the instrument's ability to acquire highly accurate measurements. In Target Mode, the instrument views a single point of interest continuously as the satellite passes over.

A.53 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME The OCO payload consists of three classical grating spectrometers and acquires data in three different measurement modes. The instrument views the ground directly in Nadir Mode, and views the location Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Optics & Opto- Spectrometers where sunlight is directly reflected on Orbiting Carbon 16 A Optics XI 2007 Hamilton HamiltonSunstrand Electronics and radiometers the Earth's surface in Glint Mode Observatory Sunstrand which enhances the instrument's ability to acquire highly accurate measurements. In Target Mode, the instrument views a single point of interest continuously as the satellite passes over. Optics & Opto- Spectrometers Phoenix Scout 16 A Optics XI 2007 Analysis of surface samples University of Arizona Malin Space Systems Electronics and Radiometers Mission Primary sensor for Sea Surface Salinity; will measure seawater NASA / CONAE L-band emissivity sensitive to salinity (L- Earth and Space Research In conjunction with ground Optics and opto- (microwave) September Aquarius / SAC- 16 A Optics XI band). Characteristics: 0.15K (ESR), AI Solutions, Swales No information found calibration: in situ sensors electronics radiometer 2008 D accuracy provides 0.2 psu salinity Aerospace, Bigelow Laboratory on buoys and ships. (1.413GHz) (7,11) and stability for 8 days; +/- 3m for Ocean Sciences aperture (11). Mineral and elemental identification – Mars Optics and Opto- Spectrometers 16 A Optics XI 2005 25-50 m/pixel from 200-400 km; 0.4- No information found No information found Reconnaissanc Electronics and Radiometers 3.6 microns e Orbiter

The Tropospheric Emission Spectroemter (TES) is a high- resolution infrared-imaging Fourier transform spectrometer with spectral coverage of 3.2 to 15.4 µm at a spectral resolution of 0.025 cm -1 , thus offering line-width-limited TES is one of four Optics&Opto- Spectrometers discrimination of essentially all 16 A Optics XI 2004 Jet Propulsion Laboratory No information found Aura instruments aboard the Electronics and radiometers radiative active molecular species in Aura satellite the Earth's lower atmosphere

Spatial resolution: 0.53 x 5.3 km Swath: 5.3 x 8.5 km Spectral region: 3.2 to 15.4 µm, with four single-line arrays optimized for different spectral regions

High Resolution Dynamics Limb Center for Limb Atmospheric HIRDS is one of four Optics&Opto- Spectrometers Sounder(HIRDS): 16 A Optics XI 2004 Sounding No information found Aura instruments aboard the Electronics and radiometers Multi-channel infrared radiometric University of Colorado Aura satellite detector array

A.54 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME JPL Earth and Space Research Optics and opto- Scatterometer September Provides critical correction for Aquarius / SAC- 16 A Optics XI (ESR), AI Solutions, Swales No information found electronics 1.26GHz 2008 surface roughness. D Aerospace, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences HRI (on flyby spacecraft): Infrared Spectrometer; Spatial Resolution: Optics and Opto- Spectrometers December Ball Aerospace and 16 A Optics XI 10e-6 radians; spectral resolution: No information found Deep Impact Electronics and Radiometers 2004 Technologies Corp. 10e-6; spectral range: 1.05-4.8 microns The three-channel Imaging Infrared Radiometer (IIR) is a nadir-viewing, non-scanning imager having a 64 km by 64 km swath with a pixel size of 1 THz and Far IR Centre National d'Etudes Optics & Opto- km. It uses a single microbolometer 16 A Optics XII instrumentation 2004 Spatiales; No information found Calipso Electronics detector array, with a rotating filter and sensors Institut Pierre Simon Laplace wheel providing measurements at three channels in the thermal infrared window region at 8.7 µm, 10.5 µm and 12.0 µm. MLS is one of four THz and FIR Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS): instruments aboard the Optics&Opto- Jet Propulsion Laboratory; 16 A Opto-electronics XII component 2004 Advanced Planar No information found Aura Aura satellite; Electronics Subsystems from industry technology Technology Mixers MLS is covering both the FIR and submm range MLS is one of four THz and FIR Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS): instruments aboard the Optics&Opto- Jet Propulsion Laboratory; 16 A Opto-electronics XII component 2004 Monolithic millimeter-wavelength No information found Aura Aura satellite Electronics Subsystems from industry technology integrated-circuit amplifier MLS is covering both the FIR and submm range MLS is one of four THz and FIR instruments aboard the Optics&Opto- Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS): Jet Propulsion Laboratory; 16 A Opto-electronics XII component 2004 No information found Aura Aura satellite Electronics Solid State based Local Oscillators Subsystems from industry technology MLS is covering both the FIR and submm range MLS is one of four Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS): instruments aboard the Optics&Opto- Jet Propulsion Laboratory; 16 B Optics I Laser technology 2004 CO2 pumped Methanol-Laser No information found Aura Aura satellite Electronics Subsystems from industry (2.5THz) MLS is covering both the FIR and submm range IRAC (four-channel camera), 2003 provides simultaneous 5.12 x 5.12 Detector and launched arcmin images at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8 16 Optics B Opto-Electronics IV detector arrays Jet Propulsion Laboratory No information found SIRTF successfull microns. Each of the four detector technologies y arrays in the camera are 256 x 256 pixels in size

A.55 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME

Infrared Spectrograph(IRS), consisting of four separate modules: 1) low-resolution, short- wavelength mode covering the 5.3- 14 micron interval; 2003 2) high resolution, short- Detector and launched wavelength mode covering 10 16 Optics B Opto-Electronics IV detector arrays Jet Propulsion Laboratory No information found SIRTF successfull 19.5 microns; technologies y 3) low-resolution, long- wavelength mode for observations at 14-40 microns; 4) high-resolution, long- wavelength mode for 19-37 microns. detectors are 128 x 128 arrays.

Multiband imaging photometer (MIPS): 128 x 128 array for imaging 2003 Detector and at 24 microns A 32 x 32 array for launched 16 Optics B Opto-Electronics IV detector arrays imaging at 70 microns and a 2 x 20 Jet Propulsion Laboratory No information found SIRTF successfull technologies array for imaging at 160 microns; y The 32 x 32 array will also take spectra from 50 - 100 microns Large area focal plane array and advanced cryogenic cooling. Long Improved spectral National Oceanic and wavelength detector - 128x128 response in infrared pixel Atmospheric Administration Detector and infrared pixel array connected to an array, mini-cyrocoolers Optics & Opto- (NOAA), Department of Navy’s New Millenium 16 B Opto-electronics IV detector array 2005-2006 ROIC that integrates the signal and No information found greatly reduces mass over Electronics Office of Naval Research Program: EO3 technologies reads it out. Miniaturized cryocoolers existing coolers, compact (ONR) and advanced with dual cold head, low mass, low control electronics technology providers vibration. Two-stage (55K and 140K) package cooler. HAWC will utilize a 12 x 32 array of bolometer detectors constructed using ion-implanted silicon pop-up Detector & detector technology. This new Optics&Optoele Goddard Space Flight 16 B Opto-electronics IV Detector array 2005 technology enables construction of No information found No information found SOFIA ctronics Center technologies close-packed, two-dimensional arrays of bolometers with high quantum efficiency and area filling factors of greater than 95% Mars Aerothermodyn Computational Computational Aerobraking; Performance 17 A I 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc amics tools Fluid Dynamics characteristics are TBD. e Orbiter Advanced Mars Aerothermodyn Computational Aerobraking; Performance 17 A II Numerical 2005 No information found No information found Reconnaissanc amics tools characteristics are TBD. Methods e Orbiter

A.56 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME Proportional helium thrusters consisting of pairs of opposed Chemical Liquid Propulsion September nozzles adjusted continuously for Lockheed Martin 18 Propulsion A Propulsion I No information found Gravity Probe B Systems 2003 smoother control, and helium slosh Missiles and Space Technologies modelling for stable propulsion system Ion Propulsion – Low Thrust Electric Partnership with UCLA, JPL, Propulsion; Thrust levels at 18 Propulsion B Propulsion I Electrostatic May 2006 German and Italian space Orbital Sciences Corp. Dawn maximum power are 1/50 lbf and Technologies agencies 3100 sec. Isp. Inflatable and Structures & Shield, reflectors, 19 C deployable III 2010 Deployablse sunshield No information found No information found JWST Pyrotechnics booms structures 2003 Cryostat, provides cryogenic Cryogenics&Refri launched 20 Thermal B II Cryo-Coolers temperature (1.4K), hold time is 5 Jet Propulsion Laboratory No information found SIRTF geration successfull years y Passive Orbital Disconnect Strut to Cryogenics and Dewars and September provide low heat leak support in orbit Lockheed Martin 20 Thermal B III No information found Gravity Probe B Refrigeration Passive Systems 2003 and detailed thermal modelling are Missiles and Space the new dewar technology features. 2003 Coatings&Insulati launched Outer Shell, based on light weight 20 Thermal D Heat storage& I Jet Propulsion Laboratory No information found SIRTF on success- aluminium honeycomb structures fully Cooling Stowage Drawer—part of Flight Rack 1; like Standard Interface Environmental Rack 4 Panel Unit stowage drawer control Life with additional ductwork, air inlets Support (ECLS) Environmental Environmental and HRF Rack Common Fan. Will 21 and On-Situ A control & life I control and 2008 No information found No information found Integrity provide passive stowage volume for Resource support monitoring HRF hardware and air circulation Utilization through HRF Thermal System Heat (ISRU) Exchangers. Is Intravehicular Activity replaceable.

A.57 APPENDIX U.S.A. TECHNOLOGY TABLE

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TIME TD TSD TG KEY AND NEW INNOVATIONS COOPERATION COMMENTS PRIME CONTRACTOR MISSIONS OTHER COMMENTS DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN GROUP FRAME The GMI is a conical-scan, passive microwave radiometer that will be used for rainfall measurement. Its design will most likely incorporate substantial heritage from a previous design (i.e., SSM/I-TMI, SSMIS, or Component Microwave CMIS). GMI will be designed to make 22 Components B Evaluation III 2006 No information found NASA GPM Devices simultaneous measurements in Technologies: several microwave frequencies (e.g., 10.7, 19.3, 21, 37, 89, 150-165 and 183GHz), giving the instrument the capability to measure a variety of rainfall rates and related environmental parameters.

The detailed measurements of cloud structure and precipitation characteristics will be made with the DPR. The DPR is comprised of two independent radars. One radar operates in the Ku-Band (13.6 GHz) and is referred to as the Precipitation Radar (PR)-U. The other radar Component operates in the Ka-Band (35.55 GHz) Microwave 22 Components B Evaluation III 2006 and is referred to as the PR-A. By No information found NASA GPM Devices Technologies: measuring the reflectivities of rain at two different radar frequencies, it is possible to infer information regarding rainrate, cloud type and its three-dimensional structure, rainrate,and drop-size distribution. The DPR will have a 245 km wide ground swath, comprised of 49 footprints, each 5km in width.

A.58