Symposium On , Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

E3.2 – International Cooperation: Goals, Constraints, and Means IAC-12.E3.2.7

Integrating National Interests in Space

Dr. Scott Pace, Space Policy Institute George Washington University, Washington, D.C., USA [email protected]

63rd International Astronautical Congress Naples, Italy October 1-5, 2012

In seeking to advance international security interests in space, the context for civil and commercial space activities must be considered along with the context for military and intelligence ones. The international political environment and rationales for space activities are shaped both “hard” and “soft” power realities. A broad international approach to can play an important strategic role in securing a more stable, peaceful environment for all space activities. Organizing such an approach will not be easy – not the least because of recent US space policy statements and programmatic decisions affecting lunar and Mars exploration efforts. US national interests and those of its friends and allies would benefit from a more effective integration of national security and civil space interests. In particular, this will require amending recent US policy mistakes and addressing shortfalls in important national space capabilities. Looking forward, a program of peaceful, multilateral exploration of the Moon would be a symbolic and practical means of creating a framework for peaceful space cooperation in concert with dual-use discussions of an international space code of conduct and other transparency and confidence building measures.

1.0 NATIONAL INTERESTS IN SPACE Recent years have seen the emergence of new threats to US space activities, threats that are The United States is facing new challenges and different from those of the and which new opportunities in integrating its civil, have their own distinct dynamics. Threats to the commercial, and national security space interests sustainability of space activities today come not in the context of a dynamic global environment. from a single but from a much more Space activities today play critical roles in US diverse group of actors whose motivations can national security, economic growth, and range from deliberate to ambiguous and even scientific achievements. The Global Positioning accidental. In some cases, threats arise from a System (GPS) is an integral part of several known nation state while in others, it is critical infrastructures and enables functions impossible to attribute responsibility due to a ranging from survey and construction, to lack of sufficient “space situational awareness” farming, finance, and air traffic management – to support national intelligence needs. not to mention supporting US military forces worldwide. The International In 2007, without prior notification, China tested represents a unique collaborative partnership a high altitude anti- (ASAT) between the United States, , Canada, against one of its old weather . This test Japan, and Russia. There is increasing concern created tens of thousands of pieces of orbital in the United States and among other spacefaring debris and increased the risk of collision and nations with the long-term sustainability of the damage to many satellites operating in low Earth in the face of increasing (LEO), including the International Space amounts of orbital debris. International space Station, for many years. In 2009, there was an cooperation, space commerce, and international accidental collision over the Arctic between a space security discussions could be used to defunct Russian Kosmos communications reinforce each other in ways that would advance satellite and an active Iridium communications US interests in the sustainability and security of satellite that added even more orbital debris to all space activities. At present, however, these . North Korea, faced with activities are largely conducted on their multiple UN sanctions, has continued developing individual merits and not as part of integrated ballistic missile capabilities under the guise of national strategy. peaceful space launches. Iran continues to jam

IAC-12.E3.2.7 1

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

commercial satellite broadcasts in order to space systems is an infringement of a nation’s prevent foreign reports of domestic unrest from rights. The policy states that the United States reaching its population. There have been reports “recognizes the need for stability in the space of attempts at unauthorized access to US civil environment” and that it will pursue “bilateral scientific satellites, e.g., Terra and Landsat in and multilateral transparency and confidence 2007 and 2008, but the source of these attempts building measures to encourage responsible has not been confirmed. actions in space.”

The global space community is a growing one The policy also made some important changes with new capabilities and new entrants each compared to the 2006 National Space Policy of year. Europe is building its own version of GPS, the previous Bush Administration, notably with titled “Galileo,” and has long been a leading respect to arms control. Unlike the 2006 policy, supplier of international commercial launch the 2010 policy does not categorically reject services with its Ariane family of launch space-related arms control that would constrain vehicles. China has flown several astronauts, US space activities but states that any such becoming only the third country to demonstrate agreements would have to be “equitable, independent human access to space. China is effectively verifiable, and enhance the national also constructing a space laboratory and has security of the United States and its allies.” This demonstrated complex rendezvous and docking is a traditional US policy formulation that was operations in preparation for a fully manned also used during the Reagan Administration. space station in 2020 – about the time the There is nothing in the policy, however, about International Space Station may be ending its actively pursuing new international treaties, operations. Japan has updated its domestic space creating legal norms, or characterizing space as a legislation to enable pursuit of national security “global commons” or being part of the “common and dual-use space projects in addition to heritage of all mankind” – ambiguous terms that traditional civil scientific efforts. India has are advocated in some segments of the aspirations for its own human international and policy communities.ii missions and future lunar landings. The general coherence on the national security Space commerce is growing at many levels and foreign policy side of the 2010 National outside of North America, Europe and Russia. Space Policy is not matched in the section of the Japan has announced plans to sell radar satellites policy dealing with civil space exploration. The to Vietnam, while South Korea is seeking to sell policy says that the NASA Administrator shall an optical imaging satellite to the United Arab “set far-reaching exploration milestones. By Emirates. Brazil and China are continuing many 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, years of space cooperation in remote sensing including sending humans to an asteroid.” while India and South Africa are close to Unlike the carefully crafted text elsewhere in the concluding their own space cooperation policy, this section appears to have been taken agreement. All of these countries recognize that directly from an April 15, 2010, speech by space capabilities are important for both practical President Obama at the Kennedy Space Center in and symbolic reasons and that these capabilities Florida.iii Subsequent technical work has shown are intrinsically “dual-use” in that civil, security, that there are few scientifically attractive, and commercial applications are based on similar technically feasible asteroids that can be reached skills and technologies. on this schedule.iv

1.1 US National Space Policy and the National Even worse, the international space community, Security Space Strategy which had been shifting attention to the Moon in anticipation of that being the next US focus of The current US National Space Policy, a exploration beyond low Earth orbit, felt comprehensive document that addresses the full blindsided by President Obama’s speech and the range of US interests in space, was released in new US emphasis on a human mission to an June 2010.i The policy continues many long- asteroid. Countries in Asia, such as Japan, India, standing principles, such as the right of all China and South Korea, saw the Moon as a nations to engage in the peaceful uses of outer challenging but feasible destination for robotic space, recognition of the inherent right of self- exploration and a practical focus for human defense, and that purposeful interference with space exploration. The asteroid mission was,

IAC-12.E3.2.7 2

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

perhaps unintentionally on the part of the United • “We seek to address the contested States, taken as a sign that the United States environment with a multilayered would focus on partnerships with the most deterrence approach. We will support capable countries, such as Russia, for human establishing international norms and space exploration and not engage in broad transparency and confidence-building international cooperation. measures in space, primarily to promote spaceflight safety but also to dissuade and The perception that the next steps in human impose international costs on aggressive space exploration would be too difficult to allow behavior.” meaningful participation by most spacefaring countries undercut international support for A problem with the phrase about establishing human space exploration more generally. The norms is that it goes beyond the terms of the lack of US support for a program to return to the National Space Policy. Furthermore, it Moon made it difficult for advocates of human presupposes there will be some authority by space exploration in Europe, Japan, India, and which the norms are established and that the elsewhere to gain funding for any efforts beyond United States will be bound along with other the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS is nations.vi Many harmful activities such as the itself under budget pressure to justify its intentional creation of long-lived orbital debris construction and on-going operations costs, a and intentional satellite jamming are already task that has been more difficult by the lack of a contrary to international law, notably the Outer clear direction for human space exploration Space Treaty and the Constitution of the beyond low Earth orbit. The lack of International Telecommunication Union. Yet international leadership by the United States there has been little in the way of sanctions save may, however, provide an opportunity for rising for international complaints. A more useful spacefaring countries such as China to play a statement might have been one about promoting greater role in the future. If China is able to offer compliance with existing international laws and pragmatic opportunities for space cooperation on agreements. its own space station or as part of efforts to send humans to the Moon, other countries will likely Unfortunately, the US Defense Department uses it attractive to forge closer relationships with the legally problematic term “global commons” China. A shift in international space influence with respect to space in its most recent away from the United States and toward China Quadrennial Defense Review, dated February would have the potential to impact a wide range 2010.vii This term applies to the high seas and of US national security and foreign policy the air above them, but is not yet accepted interests in space. internationally or even officially by the United States. Whether intentional or not, use of the The National Security Space Strategy was terms “norms” and “global commons” sends released in January 2011 as a report to Congress mixed messages to international audiences about and is intended to provide direction to the US the US view of space, despite stated desires to national security space community in planning, reduce miscommunication. Norms of programming, acquisition, operations, and responsible behavior are unlikely to be a serious analyses.v While signed by the Secretary of deterrent to an adversary contemplating an attack Defense and the Director of National Intelligence on US space systems. Under threat of attack or the strategy places a major emphasis on denial of crucial space systems, other countries diplomatic activities – a responsibility of the may move toward neutrality in a crisis and thus Department of State – as well as dual-use weaken US alliances. In the longer term, they capabilities that are promoted and regulated by may accelerate the acquisition of independent the Departments of Commerce, Transportation, capabilities rather than be unwillingly and State. The implementation of the strategy “entangled” with the United States. says, in part, that (emphasis added): 1.2 An International Space Code of Conduct? • “We seek to address congestion by establishing norms, enhancing space China and Russia have for many years advocated situational awareness, and fostering an international treaty barring space as greater transparency and information well as the use or the threat of the use of force sharing.” against space objects. They have introduced a

IAC-12.E3.2.7 3

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

draft treaty at the UN Conference on debris” and for signatories to share information Disarmament as part of deliberations on the on their space policies and practices.ix “prevention of an arms race in ” Procedurally, the code is being discussed outside (known as PAROS). The United States has of both COPUOS and the Conference on consistently opposed such a treaty as Disarmament as the former does not deal with unnecessary, unverifiable, and not in the interests security issues and that latter is deadlocked on of the United States and its allies. A major flaw other, non-space security issues. This is an in the draft treaty continues to be the difficulty in approach that avoids being constrained by the defining just what a space weapon is; even if existing structures of UN organizations while defined, the Chinese-Russian text leaves out being open to all interested parties. ground-based systems such as interceptors and lasers. Consideration of a verifiable agreement, Considerable expert-level consultation will be based on behavior, to ban the intentional creation needed before consideration could be given to of long-lived orbital debris has not gained much calling a diplomatic conference for a code of traction due to the impasse over the Chinese- conduct. While the United States and its Russian proposal. traditional allies could likely come to an agreement, it is also important to draw in other Regardless of differing viewpoints on weapons spacefaring nations outside Europe, Canada, in space, there is wide international concern with Japan and the United States. The United States the “sustainability” of space activities among and its allies do not have space security concerns both developing and developed spacefaring with each other as much as they do with the states. Orbital debris, regardless of origin, and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South radiofrequency interference are hazards to all Africa) - not to mention North Korea and Iran. space operations. Rather than a “top down” An international space code of conduct will be negotiation of a treaty among major space valuable to the extent it can create a consensus powers, the development “bottom up” of with other spacefaring states around the world. technical best practices to mitigate hazards can Establishing such a consensus, however, is likely be a more effective means of engaging a wider to take longer with countries that do not have a range of space actors. This is the approach taken history of close civil space cooperation with the in the development of orbital debris mitigation United States. European efforts to explain their guidelines over several years in the Scientific draft proposal immediately prior to the June and Technical Committee of the United Nations 2012 plenary meeting of COPUOS met with Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space skepticism from many developing countries. (COPUOS). The guidelines have helped These countries were surprised by the proposal mitigate the creation of new debris but more and questioned why it was being pursued outside needs to be done as the growth of debris has only of traditional UN forums. slowed, not reversed. Actual reversal in the numbers and mass debris will likely require There will also be skepticism from some in the “active debris removal” – a topic fraught with a US Congress toward a code of conduct. In technical, economic, and political challenges.viii February 2011, a group of 37 Republican Senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary The has proposed a draft “Code Clinton expressing concerns that US acceptance of Conduct for Outer Space Activities” that of a space code of conduct would constrain US would be a collection of non-legally binding space capabilities.x They wrote, “We are deeply transparency and confidence building measures concerned that the Administration may sign the (TCBMs) and norms for space. Such measures United States on to a multilateral commitment would be purely voluntary by subscribing states, with a multitude of potential highly damaging with no international enforcement mechanism, implications for sensitive military and except the political stigma associated with their intelligence programs (current, planned or intentional violation. Verification of adherence otherwise), as well as a tremendous amount of to particular TCBMs would be left to the commercial activity.” In particular, the Senators capabilities of each member. A draft code were concerned with possible constraints on released by the European Union in October 2010 space basing of interceptors and calls for states to “refrain from the intentional anti-satellite weapons as well as the costs of destruction of any on-orbit space object or other compliance. A code that helps to single out activities which may generate long-lived orbital rogue actors and reduces the risk of orbital debris

IAC-12.E3.2.7 4

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

to US space operations might be accepted. The available information. The domestic challenges Senate will likely reject a code that tries to go for US space activities can be illustrated however further and limit ballistic missile defenses or by the experiences of NASA in recent years. which seems to discriminate against the United States. The loss of a second Space Shuttle, the Columbia, in 2003 resulted in the decision to A more subtle US domestic concern with a space retire the fleet after completion of the code of conduct is whether it becomes a pretext International Space Station. The Columbia for avoiding costly improvements in space Accident Investigation Board recommended that mission assurance and resilience of critical “because the Shuttle is now an aging system but military functions during conflict. International still developmental in character, it is in the political agreements are a poor substitute for nation’s interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as having actual capabilities to, as the National possible as the primary means for transporting Space Policy requires, “deter, defend against, humans to and from Earth orbit.” The Board and, if necessary, defeat efforts to interfere with noted the failures in developing the National or attack US or allied space systems.” Aerospace Plane, the X-33, X-38, or any Deterrence in space is no different from replacement for the aging Space Shuttle with the deterrence on the land, seas or in the air: the observation, “previous attempts to develop a focus is on understanding the thinking of an replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle opponent. Ensuring adequate military represent a failure of national leadership.”xi capabilities requires understanding how space systems fit into joint and combined arms Plans to replace the Shuttle with a government- campaigns, as well as understanding the views led system were disrupted by the 2010 decision and values of potential adversaries. This in turn to cancel NASA’s and may well suggest steps toward greater shift to reliance on new private providers of crew international cooperation with friends and allies. launch services. The last Shuttle flight occurred Codes of conduct and other “transparency and in 2011 and the United States is now reliant on confidence building measures” can be helpful in Russia for human access to space. While the reducing the chances of accidental conflict and in Bush Administration contemplated a four-to providing cues to unusual activities. Codes and five-year gap in US human access to space, TCBMs should not, however, be seen as a strictly because of budget considerations, the substitute for the military capabilities necessary current gap may now be more than six years. to deter potential adversaries and meet US This is due to a change in strategic direction, i.e., alliance commitments. NASA is no longer managing the development of human space transportation systems for access 2.0 DOMESTIC CHALLENGES FOR US to low orbit. In August 2012, NASA announced SPACE ACTIVITIES the selection of three companies, SpaceX, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada as part of its The next US Administration – whoever the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability president may be – will face major policy and Initiative (CCiCap). The firms are being funded programmatic challenges in every space sector – to develop a privately owned and operated means civil, military, intelligence, and commercial. US of carrying crew to and from the International technical capabilities today are dramatically Space Station. NASA plans to fund only one superior to what they were at the opening of the company through to its “critical design review” Space Age or even during the Cold War. before the construction of operational vehicles. However, in relative terms and compared to the If successful, the first flights could occur by importance of space to US national interests, the 2017.xii trends are worrisome as they represent shortfalls in US space capabilities and disconnects between In addition to the cost of paying Russia for crew US policy statements and actions. The United transportation, US partners are concerned with States does not currently have human access to relying on a single country for access to the space and its space situational awareness International Space Station. Multiple Russian capabilities lag in comparison to the needs launch failures - Proton upper stage losses in created by a more complex and congested space August 2012 and December 2010, a Rockot loss environment. It is difficult to discuss national in February 2011, and Proton-M failures security space activities due to a lack of publicly in August 2011, the Phobos-Grunt Mars mission

IAC-12.E3.2.7 5

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

loss on a Zenit in November 2011, and another Government, and the International Civil Soyuz failure in December 2011 - have raised Aeronautics Organization (ICAO) over possible concerns that Russia’s traditional strength in interference to satellite-based positioning and reliable launch vehicles may be fading. The navigation. The international community has successful berthing of the unmanned SpaceX been puzzled by the US debate over possible Dragon cargo vehicle on the International Space interference to GPS, as the National Space Station in May 2012 was a welcome step Policy clearly requires the “protection of forward in restoring a limited US capability to radionavigation spectrum from disruption and send supplies to and bring back materials from interference.” the Station. It was only an early step, however, toward restoring a US 2.1 NASA Budget Instability capability. Government budgets for space activity are of In addition to disruptions in US human space obvious interest to the Department of Defense, flight, the United States was unable to make a NASA, and NOAA, as well as their contractors. long-term financial commitment to Europe for a Large capital investments, large fixed costs, and program of robotic exploration of Mars, despite highly specialized technical talent characterize years of involvement in the planning process. major sectors of the space business, like space This prompted the to launch. This means that timing, phasing and invite Russia to be a full partner in the ExoMars stability of funding is often just as important as program in October 2011 after discussions with the total level of funding. Unfortunately, recent the United States reached an impasse. Budget years have been characterized by both lower constraints have similarly prevented domestic funding AND greater volatility. Figure 1 shows production of Plutonium-238 after Russian NASA budget requests since the beginning of supplies ran out. This nuclear fuel is critical to the current Administration. The FY 2010 budget providing electrical power to missions traveling was flat and characterized as a “placeholder” beyond Mars and long-term exploration of the pending the ’s review of planets. There is enough fuel for one more plans for human space flight in 2009.xiii “flagship” mission but that will be the end of such missions without new supplies. Finally, The FY 2011 request released in February 2010 budget uncertainty has caused delays in the restored the NASA top-line to the level it had construction of the next series of weather been during the previous Bush Administration – satellites and the United States may be facing a but with a significantly different portfolio, i.e., multiyear gap in meteorological data that will with more funds for commercial crew result in less accurate near-term weather development, technology and Earth science predictions. All of these incidents create missions. The Obama Administration’s budget credibility issues and complications for US proposal also cancelled the Constellation efforts to expand international cooperation in program to develop the capsule, the Ares I space. launch vehicle, and the subsequent Ares V heavy lift vehicle. These capabilities were intended to Financial turmoil is not the only source of support a human return to the Moon in the early difficulty for US space operations. For more 2020s and create the foundations for eventual than a year, the Federal Communications human missions to Mars. The US Congress Commission (FCC) has been considering opposed the cancellations and protracted political allowing a terrestrial broadband company to struggle ensued, which eventually resulted in the operate in the spectrum adjacent to GPS. This NASA Authorization Act of 2010. This Act did spectrum has been previously allocated to not provide significantly different total funding satellite services that were compatible with GPS. for NASA, but it did restore funds to develop the Unfortunately, testing has shown that the Orion and a shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle proposed terrestrial broadband service would called the . The lunar create unacceptable interference to many, if not focus was replaced by what NASA termed a all, GPS-enabled services. The regulatory “capabilities-driven” evolution in which various uncertainty at the FCC prompted formal missions would be defined as new capabilities expressions of international concern from the were demonstrated. European Commission, the Japanese

IAC-12.E3.2.7 6

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

Figure 1 – NASA Budget Requests since FY 2010

The NASA budget profile again declined in the Figure 2 assume that 100% of the space FY 2012 request. The budget was flat and at the technology budget line contributes to level of the earlier FY 2010 “placeholder” exploration. If the actual percentage is less, say proposal. The FY 2013 request declined again, 50%, then the decline is even more dramatic. with NASA now projected to be flat at even NASA is still a large and capable agency, but an lower levels. Adding to the uncertainty, NASA increasing proportion of its resources are not and OMB did not even share the same projected going to human space exploration. spending levels in future years. In both the FY 2012 and FY 2013 budget requests, the phasing NASA’s budget request for 2013, $17.7 billion, of reductions was different with near term is virtually the same as it was for 2009. The declines and farther term increases contrasted Augustine Committee’s recommendation to with flat projections. Notwithstanding wry increased NASA’s total budget by $3 billion per comments about “flat being the new up” such year was clearly not heeded. An obvious uncertainty and reductions in real purchasing question to ask is whether any other budgetary power is more accurately described as “less is outcome would be affordable. NASA’s budget less.” The phasing of reductions and differences is less than 0.5 percent of the entire Federal over them makes it more difficult for NASA and budget. From that perspective, the NASA industry managers to plan work efficiently. budget is not a question of affordability but of priorities. In today’s environment with massive The impact of budget volatility has been debt and an anemic economic recovery, especially severe in the case of human space sustaining discretionary expenditure for civil exploration. Figure 2 shows reductions in space exploration will be especially challenging NASA’s exploration budget since FY 2009, the unless there is a clearer rationale linking such last budget of the previous Administration. efforts to broader national interests that can be Notwithstanding the volatility of the NASA top supported in a bipartisan manner over many line, the steady trend in exploration has been years. down. For FY 2011, 2012, and 2013, the lines in

IAC-12.E3.2.7 7

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

Figure 2 – NASA Exploration Budget Projections

3.0 STRATEGIC APPROACHES TO symbolism of human space flight and a sense HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION that it may have longer-term practical value that make US political leaders reluctant to cancel Unmanned space exploration efforts in planetary such efforts or to be seen as supporting such an science, astrophysics, and heliophysics are under action. Human spaceflight (if not pure great stress due to budget overruns and schedule exploration) may one day become a self- delays from large “flagship-class” efforts (e.g., sustaining commercial activity but that day has Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory and James not yet come. Webb ). This has resulted in cancellation of smaller, lower priority missions There are many diverse reasons individuals may and a reduction in flight opportunities for have for supporting human space flight along researchers not already on the largest programs. with many different activities that could The problems faced by these science programs constitute an on-going human space flight effort, are programmatic, not existential, questions. e.g., , landing on Mars, exploiting There is no debate in the United States about space resources, etc. Aside from an Apollo-like whether to have a space science program, but crisis, which seems unlikely to reoccur, there rather what level of effort is affordable and seems to be three major alternative strategic executable. approaches the United States might take toward human space exploration: 1) Capability-driven, In contrast, there is an on-going debate over 2) Question-driven, and 3) Geopolitically-driven. whether and what kind of human space exploration effort the United States should have. 3.1 Capability-driven While many supporters of human space flight see such efforts as “inevitable” or “part of our The current US approach to human space destiny,” those views are not widely enough held exploration is officially described as “capability to ensure stable political support. At the same driven”: time, there is a level of support for the political

IAC-12.E3.2.7 8

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

“NASA’s human space exploration strategy 4. It will encourage greater international focuses on capabilities that enable exploration of participation in space flight.”xvi multiple destinations This capability-driven approach is based on a set of core evolving In essence, NASA would develop a human space capabilities that can be leveraged or reused, flight capability that would continue to enable instead of specialized, destination-specific the United States to send humans into space, be hardware This approach is designed to be robust, more affordable, and hopefully accomplish affordable, sustainable, and flexible, preparing useful tasks still to be determined. The Obama NASA to explore a range of destinations and Administration’s approach is arguably similar to enabling increasingly complex missions.”xiv that taken by the Nixon Administration in the early 1970s. This approach does not focus on a specific destination, question, or purpose for human 3.2 Question-driven space flight, but rather seeks to keep a range of options open while deferring decisions on An alternative strategic approach is to take an specific architectures and rationales. In a budget intentionally question-driven approach and pose constrained environment without any specific questions or grand challenges to be addressed by political or economic rationale, such an approach human space exploration efforts – or at least avoids taking a decision to cancel human space those efforts that rely on public resources. In flight and the need to specify what human space this approach, a program of human space flight should accomplish. exploration is more than a series of spectacular engineering demonstrations – as in the case of This is not the first time the United States has Apollo – but a means of answering questions taken this approach. In the aftermath of the important to society. After gaining foundational , the Nixon Administration did capabilities like space transportation, not want to cancel human space flight but neither communications, navigation, and power, an did it want to continue the costs and risk of exploration program could look to use in-situ human missions to the Moon and eventually resources, create new resupply methods (e.g., in- Mars. In 1970, while the lunar landings were space propellant depots), and commercial still underway, President Nixon said: partnerships. This could help move debates beyond “robots versus humans” or “Moon versus “We must realize that space activities will be a Mars” or “Science versus Exploration” to a more part of our lives for the rest of time. We must question-driven, mission-focused series of think of them as part of a continuing process-one decisions. which will go on day in and day out, year in and year out -- and not as a series of separate leaps, Just as the Challenger accident led to each requiring a massive concentration of energy questioning whether human life should be placed and will and accomplished on a crash at risk in launching satellites that could be timetable.... We must also realize that space carried by an unmanned rocket, so the Columbia expenditures must take their proper place within accident led to asking for what purposes, if any, a rigorous system of national priorities.”xv was risking human life worthwhile. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board The 1972 decision to build the Space Shuttle was concluded that the nation should continue a explained by NASA Administrator James program of human space flight, eventually Fletcher in a similar, low-key fashion: moving beyond Earth orbit. Although not stated explicitly, the implication was that if the nation “There are four main reasons why the Space were to continue to place human life at risk, Shuttle is important and is the right step in staying in low Earth orbit was an insufficient manned space flight and the US space program. goal to justify such risks. 1. The Shuttle is the only meaningful new manned space program which can be For those who believe that human expansion into accomplished on a modest budget; the solar system should be an important part of 2. It is needed to make space operations less what the United States does as a nation, complex and less costly; abandoning human space flight completely or 3. It is needed to do useful things, and even staying in low Earth orbit would be politically unacceptable. However, there are

IAC-12.E3.2.7 9

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

many who do not share the same feeling about should be given to a routine survey that assesses the priority of human space flight to the nation progress in (or lack of) human spaceflight and and it would be helpful to squarely acknowledge reviews priorities on a ten year time scale as that uncertainty. The original decision to go to done for scientific fields. Such routine reviews the Moon was an answer to President Kennedy’s could also improve the stability of human question on whether there was any area in which spaceflight efforts across Administration the United States had a chance of surpassing the transitions. If the United States could shift away . The change in payload policy from existential debates on whether or not to after Challenger was an answer to question have a human space exploration effort, it could about relative risk and reward of using humans use open, enduring questions to guide for satellite deployments. The recommendation programmatic decisions for an affordable and of the CAIB to eventually go beyond LEO was effective human spaceflight effort. For example, in response to the question of using humans in priority could be given to answering such space at all, posed by the loss of Columbia. questions as: whether humans can operate effectively away from Earth for long periods of Today, what is the question for which the human time, can they utilize local resources to lower exploration of space is the answer? A useful reliance on materials from Earth, and whether high-level question for human space exploration self-sustaining commercial activities (requiring could ask, “Does humanity have a future beyond direct or close human involvement) are viable. the Earth?” Either a yes or a no answer would have profound implications. Addressing this 3.3 Geopolitically-driven question quickly leads to two sub-questions: can humans “live off the land” away from Earth, and The third strategic approach is the most is there any economic justification for human historically common for the United States, a activities off the Earth?xvii If the answer to both human space exploration effort driven by questions is yes, then there will be space geopolitical interests and objectives. The United settlements. If the answer to both questions is States undertook the Apollo program in the no, then space is akin to Mount Everest – a place 1960s to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon as where explorers and tourists might visit but of no part of a global competition for Cold War greater significance. If humans can live off- prestige. The Apollo- Soyuz program planet, but there is nothing economically useful symbolized a brief period of détente in the to do, then lunar and Martian outposts will, at 1970s. The Space Station program was best, be similar to those found in Antarctica. If established in the 1980s, in part, to bring the humans cannot live off-planet, but there is some developing space capabilities of Europe and useful economic activity to perform, then those Japan closer to the United States and to outposts become like remote oil platforms. strengthen anti-Soviet alliances. Russia was Each of these scenarios represents a radically invited to join a restructured International Space different human future in space and while Station in the 1990s to symbolize a new post- individuals might have beliefs or hopes for one Cold War, post-Soviet relationship with Russia. of them, it is unknown which answer will turn What might be the geopolitical rationale for the out to be true. That is, the answer can only be next steps in human space exploration? found by actual experience. It is well recognized that many of today’s most The science community has used the productive important geopolitical challenges and practice of posing simple but profound questions opportunities lie in Asia. States under UN to shape and guide the implementation of sanction, for example, Iran and North Korea, are research strategies. Asking, “is there life seeking to develop ICBM capabilities under the elsewhere in the universe?” leads to questions of guise of space launch programs. China, India, whether there is life elsewhere in the solar and South Korea are demonstrating increasingly system, the search for water on Mars, and sophisticated space capabilities that serve both missions exploring for water and signs of life in civil and military needs. Examples of these particular locations. These questions shape the capabilities include satellite communications, design and execution of space missions. The environmental monitoring, space-based human space flight community could benefit navigation, and scientific research. Unlike from adopting similar practices to design and Europe, there are no established frameworks for prioritize its missions. In this vein, consideration peaceful space cooperation across Asia. In fact,

IAC-12.E3.2.7 10

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

the region can be characterized as containing interests. As an example, international interest in several “hostile dyads” such as India-China, mitigating orbital debris has grown as more North Korea-South Korea, and China and its countries have realized the threat such debris can neighbors around the South China Sea.xviii The pose to space systems they rely on and their United States has better relations with almost all citizens who may be working in space. of these countries than many of them have with each other. Organizing a broad international approach to space exploration and space security will not be Asian space agencies have shown a common easy – not the least because of errors and interest in lunar missions as the logical next step confusion in recent US space policy statements, beyond low Earth orbit. Such missions are seen strategies, and programs. US global influence as ambitious but achievable and thus more has been diminished by removal of the Moon as practical than missions to Mars and more distant a focus for near-term human space exploration locations. They offer an opportunity for efforts, a failure to cooperate with Europe on the emerging and established spacefaring countries next stage of robotic missions to Mars, and to advance their capabilities without taking on limitations in space object tracking and the political risks of a competitive race with each notification capabilities that would reduce the other. A multilateral program to explore the risk from orbital debris for all space users. Moon, as a first step, would be a symbolic and Potential international partners have been practical means of creating a broader confused by a lack of clear US space goals and international framework for space cooperation. priorities and looking beyond the International At the same time, the geopolitical benefits of Space Station, they have not seen opportunities improving intra-Asian relations and US for engagement other than in individual scientific engagement could support more ambitious space collaborators. As one European space agency exploration efforts than science alone might head put it, “there is lots of cooperation with justify. In concert with discussions of an Europeans, just not with Europe.”xix international space code of conduct, a broad program of human space exploration would help A more effective integration of national security garner support for other international objectives and civil space interests in support of US in support of US interests, both on Earth and in national security and foreign policy objectives space. would benefit from amending recent mistakes, providing clearer priorities and leadership, and 4.0 INTEGRATING NATIONAL creating broader bipartisan support for both civil INTERESTS IN SPACE and national security space efforts. Doing so would in turn enable opportunities for creating a Negotiations over possible “rules of the road” in more stable strategic environment that would space will not occur in isolation from other benefit all countries as well as the United States. aspects of the international environment. From International space cooperation, space the beginning of the Space Age, space activities commerce, and international space security have been “tools” of both hard and soft power discussions could be used to reinforce each other for participating nations. Hard power is in ways that would advance US interests in the represented by alliances, military capabilities, sustainability and security of all space activities. and economic strength that can compel and pay others to do what we desire. Cultural, 4.1 Recommendations diplomatic, and institutional forces are aspects of soft power by which we are able to persuade A fundamental truth for government space others to do what we desire. In seeking to programs is that budgets are policy. So the first advance international space security interests, the consideration for any policy choice and soft-power influence brought about by leadership implementing architecture is that it be funded – in civil and commercial space activities must be with clear priorities on which schedules and considered. Countries lacking a stake in stable, performance goals will be relaxed if resources peaceful space environment are unlikely to be are not forthcoming. To do otherwise is to supportive of US and allied space security imperil mission success and it would be more concerns. It is not that those counties will be realistic to do and say nothing. Thus a opposed to security concerns, but that they will fundamental recommendation is to ensure that not see the relevance to their own needs and space policies, programs, and budgets are in

IAC-12.E3.2.7 11

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

alignment, since to do otherwise is to invite descent-landing (EDL) techniques without the failure. goal of eventually being able to land humans on the Martian surface. At the same time, robotic The most immediate human space activity is the precursors will be needed for any human space on-going International Space Station. Now that explorations beyond Earth orbit. Human and construction has been completed, the priority of robotic missions should be more closely all the partners is rightly on utilization. Whether integrated to benefit both science and the Station is sustained beyond 2020 will likely exploration. Even if human missions to Mars depend on both the cost of continuing operations come decades after a human return to the Moon, and research results. If costs are high compared it will still be beneficial for robotic precursor to demonstrated and likely results, the partners missions and human exploration plans to be could decide to end the program. If operating closely aligned with each other. These efforts costs are affordable and research results draw on similar technical capabilities and, for sufficiently impressive, then the program may government-funded missions, similar sources of continue for many years. In this way, the Station budgetary and political support. will be less of a political statement in the future than it will be a major scientific facility to be International discussions of a space code of treated in a similar manner. conduct should continue. This is a means of engaging with emerging spacefaring countries Since major space projects take so long to while avoiding the distractions of unverifiable implement, it is appropriate to be working now space-based arms control treaties. Such on what should come after the Station – even if discussions recognize the diversity and scope of the Station’s end date is not certain. It is space actors, not just among states, but in the generally assumed that human space exploration private sector as well. Constraints on all beyond LEO will not be done by individual government budgets are such that private sector nations (save perhaps China) so it makes sense to initiative, partnerships, and competition will be ask potential international partners what they are of increasing importance to many (but not all) capable of and interested in doing. In this space activities. In recognition of this fact, regard, human missions to asteroids or Mars are international discussions should also include beyond the practical capabilities of almost all measures to create greater regulatory stability potential partners (save perhaps Russia). If there and encouragement for private space activities. is a serious effort to engage international Legal support for the private utilization and partners, a lunar-based architecture is most likely exploitation of non-terrestrial materials and to emerge as the next focus of human functional property rights should be part of exploration. US national space policy should be incentives for space commerce and development. updated to recognize and support such an effort. In addition, a lunar focus would provide practical Human space exploration is at a crucial transition opportunities for using private sector initiative, point with the end of the e.g., cargo delivery to the lunar surface. This and the lack of clear objectives beyond the could be done in analogy to International Space International Space Station. New space actors Station cargo delivery, but it would represent at are present who lack experience in major space least an order of magnitude greater addressable projects with the United States. At the same market even for an initial lunar base with the time, these actors have the potential to affect the same number of crewmen as the Station.xx sustainability of the space environment and thus impact US interests in space. The seemingly Despite the spectacular success of the August separate threads of human, robotic, civil, 2012 landing of Curiosity on Mars, the future of commercial, and national security space unmanned Mars exploration remains highly activities are in fact deeply intertwined with each volatile. No clear path forward exists for other, both politically and technically. The returning samples from Mars or what flagship United States can best advance its national mission will come next (if any). In the longer interests through a more integrated strategic term, there is uncertainty that robotic Mars approach to its national security and civil space exploration can continue to be productive and interests. In this way, the United States and its sustainable separate from human space allies can shape an international environment exploration efforts. For example, there is little conducive to peaceful space activities of all impetus to develop ever more capable entry- kinds in the decades ahead.

IAC-12.E3.2.7 12

Symposium On Space Policy, Regulations, and Economics – IAF 2012 October 1-5

References http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cm sUpload/st14455.en10.pdf i The White House, Office of the Press x Eli Lake, “Republicans Wary of EU Code for Secretary, “The National Space Policy of the Space Activities,” The Washington Times, United States of America,” Washington, D.C., February 3, 2011. Accessed at June 28, 2010. Accessed at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- 11/feb/3/republicans-wary-of-eu-code-for- office/fact-sheet-national-space-policy space-activity/?page=1 ii Michele Flournoy and Shawn Brimley, "The xi Columbia Accident Investigation Board Contested Commons," U.S. Naval Institute Final Report, Washington, D.C., August 26, Proceedings, Vol. 135/7/1,277, July 2009. 2003. pg. 211Accessed at Accessed at http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/pdf/vol1/ http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings chapters/chapter9.pdf /story.asp?STORY_ID=1950 xii Dan Leone, “Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra iii The White House, Office of the Press Nevada Stay in the Race for Commercial Secretary, “Remarks of the President on Space Crew,” Space News, August 3, 2012. Accessed Exploration in the 21st Century,” Merritt at http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120803- Island, Florida, April 15, 2010. Accessed at boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/ob xiii For the history of Presidential Budget ama_ksc_trans.html Requests for NASA, see the NASA web site on iv See the results of the “Target NEO” budget information at workshop held at George Washington http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.ht University, Washington, D.C., on February 11, ml 2011. Accessed at: xiv NASA, “Voyages: Charting the Course for http://targetneo.jhuapl.edu/ Sustainable Human Space Exploration,” v U.S. Department of Defense, “National Washington, D.C., June 7, 2012. Accessed at Security Space Strategy,” Washington, D.C. http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexp February 4, 2011. Accessed at lore/voyages-report.html http://www.defense.gov/home/features/201 xv T.A. Heppenheimer, The Space Shuttle 1/0111_nsss/docs/NationalSecuritySpaceStra Decision, NASA-SP-4221, Washington, D.C., tegyUnclassifiedSummary_Jan2011.pdf 1999. See Chapter 9, “Nixon’s Decision.” vi “Norms of behavior” are not necessarily Accessed at http://history.nasa.gov/SP- legally binding. The term “norms” by 4221/ch9.htm itself usually implies some international xvi NASA, Statement by Dr. James C. Fletcher, legal authority. NASA Administrator, January 5, 1972. vii U.S. Department of Defense, 2010 Accessed at Quadrennial Defense Review, Washington, http://history.nasa.gov/stsnixon.htm D.C., February 1, 2010. Accessed at xvii Harry L. Shipman, Humans in Space: 21st http://www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20 Century Frontiers, New York: Plenum Press, of%2029jan10%201600.pdf 1989. viii Objects in space remain the property of the xviii James Clay Moltz, Asia’s , New launching state, state of registry, or some legal York: Columbia University Press, 2011. owner. There is no system of space salvage xix Personal communication with the author rights. Removal of orbital debris will require xx Michael D. Griffin, “Enabling the permission of the owner and a means of Complementary Commercial and Government assessing liability if the removal fails or Enterprises in Space,” IAC-11.E3.4.6, paper causes damage to another space object. presented to the 62rd International ix Council of the European Union, “Council Astronautical Congress, Cape Town, South Conclusions concerning the revised draft Code Africa, October 6, 2011. of Conduct for Outer Space Activities,” Brussels, Belgium, October 11, 2010. Accessed at

IAC-12.E3.2.7 13