IAC- IIASL B3.8-E7.7 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL SPACE COLLABORATION FOR EXPLORATION Zoe Szajnfarber Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA, USA [email protected] Thomas M. K. Coles Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA, USA [email protected] Anthony C. Wicht Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA, USA [email protected] Annalisa L. Weigel, PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA, USA [email protected] Abstract—This paper analyses potential future collaborative Yet, while international partnerships become increasingly space exploration architectures in terms of i) the technical prevalent, echoes of cold war space mentalities in the form of capabilities of contributing partners; and ii) the constraints protectionist tendencies and prestige-oriented posturing still imposed by internal and international politics. We find that when underpin internal political agendas. And these internal agendas international partners are considered endogenously, the constrain the set of politically feasible alternatives. The impact argument for a “flexible path” approach is weakened substantially. This is because a) international contributions can of internal politics is particularly evident in the current debates make “moon first” economically feasible; and b) characteristics over US Space Policy. Unwilling to give up space of proposed “flexible path” approaches may preclude “leadership,” yet unwilling to fund a program that could international involvement due to the disproportionate risk that achieve it, NASA has been continuously asked to achieve too those contributions inherently bear. This could have serious much, with too little. The most obvious way out of this implications for future collaborations. We also note that while dilemma is for the US to take a leadership role in a global there are multiple feasible collaborative architectures, there is exploration strategy; however the details of such an approach currently substantial overlap among what the international are far from clear. partners are identifying as potential niche contributions. Potential international partners have political needs as well. Acknowledgements – The authors would like to thank 2LT George R. With newfound technical capabilities, comes an expectation to Sondecker for his contributions to the writing of this paper. Each of be treated as a “first class partner.” While many of the the country-specific sections draw heavily on group work conducted traditional partners respect the complexity of the US internal as part of MIT’s graduate space policy seminar [16.891] in spring decision making process, there is a limit to how many 2010; we thank the students for their efforts. unilateral changes in direction they will tolerate. Defining an exploration strategy that i) leverages the I. INTRODUCTION comparative advantages of contributing nations, ii) fits within Sustainable space exploration is a challenge that no one the resources of contributors, and iii) establishes a sufficiently nation can do on its own. (Global Exploration Strategy, p.2) important position for all, is a complex problem. It is not one Space exploration is an immense undertaking, both that will be solved in this paper. Our goal is merely to add technically and financially, that no one nation can accomplish some clarity to an ongoing debate. In negotiations, managing on its own. This reality has been acknowledged explicitly in ambiguity is a common strategy for achieving consensus, but international framework documents, and implicitly through in specifying alternatives it is counterproductive. As collaborative bi- and multi-lateral undertakings by all the academics, we have the luxury of addressing that ambiguity major players in the space arena. For the first time, there are directly and examining tradeoffs. multiple space agencies ready and capable of making To that end, section II examines the strategies and program significant technical contributions to a global initiative. elements that have been proposed and defines the terms as we will use them. Section III then analyzes the perspectives of 4 1 space agencies in terms of their priorities and capabilities. equipment. Note that a complete international architecture Combined these pieces form the basis for section IV, which could possibly include additional lander designs, as cargo- only landers would also be beneficial. explores the “tradespace” of possible collaborative Surface While the robotic precursor missions will employ some contributions, by focusing on strategies that are both Robotics similar technology, “surface robotics” refers specifically to technically and politically feasible.[1] The paper concludes by the pressurized rovers and assistive robotics that will discussing the key issues that it identifies. facilitate human exploration. Surface A specific scenario for a lunar mission has yet to be chosen, Habitation but pressurized habitation modules and associated Modules infrastructure will be required for any sustained human II. EXPLORATION CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS presence. These could be delivered by cargo-only landers, likely based on the lunar surface access module. One key challenge in discussing potential roles and In-orbit This refers to any orbital infrastructure that supports an opportunities for coordination in the context of a global assembly or exploration mission. Although not required by exploration architecture is the ambiguity that remains in the refueling Constellation, a number of ideas have been suggested to definition of key elements and objectives. As a basis for the enhance future missions; these include refueling and lunar orbit infrastructure to support crew exchange or provide a discussion that follows, this section seeks to clarify the key safe haven for astronauts.[3],[4] concepts used in this paper. These definitions are provided in As presented in Table 1, some program elements are much Table 1 in the context of lunar exploration with examples from more clearly defined than others. This reflects the reality of the Constellation program. the development; while some of the Constellation elements have already begun testing, operational concepts for surface Table 1 – Definition of program elements activities have yet to be rigorously defined. These less clearly Program Definition element defined elements are where international contributions are Robotic In agreement with the 2010 ISEGC reference architecture expected to be focused. They are also the elements that won’t precursor [1], these are defined as fulfilling several related functions: be needed (or are at least most subject to change) if target missions characterizing the lunar environment, resource prospecting, destinations continue to change. materials testing, and demonstrating technology and Since President Bush proposed his Vision for Exploration operations concepts. This will require some combination of orbiters, rovers, instruments, communication networks and in 2004, several unique exploration strategies and frameworks related infrastructure. have been articulated, each with different implicit and explicit Crew Capsule Designated Orion in the Constellation plans, the capsule is destinations and architectural requirements. In order to clarify designed to be capable of transporting four astronauts from the alternatives that are currently on the table, and their Earth for short to medium duration space journeys (for example to lunar orbit). By itself, Orion was not designed implications for international collaboration and program to provide the radiation protection necessary for longer elements, the below section provides a brief summary of the duration space flight (such as to the journey to Mars orbit). evolution of the various proposed strategies as well as a Any additions to the crew capsule (or separate crew living discussion of the potential paths. quarters) are considered as part of the crew capsule in this analysis. A. Evolution of the US Exploration Program Crew Launch This refers to any human-rated rocket capable of launching Vehicle a crew capsule to LEO. Under the Constellation plans, Ares In response to President Bush’s Vision for Space I was designed to launch the capsule into LEO for Exploration, NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study rendezvous with the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and lunar of 2005 formally defined the Constellation program. This surface access module. Earth The Earth Departure Stage (EDS) is the main propulsion plan emphasized minimizing cost by reusing existing departure system that would send the crew capsule and lunar surface hardware designs and established the goal of landing on the Stage (EDS) access module or a cargo lander from LEO to the Moon. moon by 2020 with the eventual objective of reaching Mars. Under the Constellation plans, it is the second liquid stage Constellation led to the development of the Ares I launch of the Ares V rocket. Although any lunar spacecraft requires appropriate propulsion, the term EDS in this paper vehicle to replace the retiring shuttle as well as programs for refers only to the EDS required for hardware launched by a the Orion Crew Capsule, the Ares V heavy launch vehicle and Heavy Lift Vehicle. It is assumed that any robotic missions the Altair Lunar Module [5]. or supplementary cargo deliveries launched on smaller Over the next five years, key contracts were let and rockets will require only a simpler EDS that will not be separately considered here. Some architectures call for the development began on Orion,