Structuring Global International Cooperation in Space Exploration Presentation to the International Lunar Conference 2005 Toronto, Canada September 19, 2005 Peggy Finarelli International Space University Ian Pryke George Mason University
Acknowledgements Two workshops of international experts Structuring Global International Cooperation in Space Exploration Strasbourg, France, April 19-22, 2005 Organized by ISU and GMU; sponsored by AAS, AIAA, ESPI, IAA and IAF; supported by Raytheon International Cooperation in the Context of a Space Exploration Vision Anchorage, Alaska, May 3-6, 2004 7th AIAA Workshop on Intl. Space Cooperation
Prospects for International Cooperation in Exploration Currently emerging US and ESA programs similar in form and objective Other Nations Moon/Mars exploration: Canada, China, India, Japan, Russia Human spaceflight: China, Russia Momentum exists for launching a worldwide cooperative venture, especially if the US and Europe choose to cooperate
Long-Term Programs... A Caveat In January 1884, President Reagan directed NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and invited the nation s Cold War friends and allies to join the program to strengthen peace... and expand freedom... for all who share our goals. By 1988, agreements with Europe, Japan and Canada were in place. After the fall of the Soviet Union, in 1993, President Clinton invited Russia to join the partnership. By [2000], the Station had evolved from a Cold War demonstration of US leadership, alliance solidarity and technological might, into an icon of post-cold War cooperation with the new Russia. ISU 2002 Symposium Paper by Cline, Finarelli, Gibbs & Pryke
Need for a New Approach Moon/Mars exploration will entail a complex, open-ended set of activities impossible to predict in detail at this early stage Traditional approach to international cooperation, i.e., negotiation of roles and responsibilities of all partners at the outset, is virtually impossible for exploration Broad international involvement desirable from early stages for political, financial and scientific & technological reasons
New Paradigm for Int l Cooperation All exploration activities, taken together, comprise a global enterprise for exploration, a two-tiered Program of Programs Implementation tier of national, bilateral and multilateral programs Coordination tier to optimize overall effort The Strasbourg Workshop focused on the design and operation of a structured, permanent international coordination mechanism.
The Coordination Process Communication, consultation, coordination Clearinghouse for national plans Identify synergies Purposes Confidence building among members Facilitate coordination of programs Promote worldwide support for exploration Goal Optimize the global exploration effort Eliminate gaps & overlaps Create strategic redundancies
The Coordination Structure Coordinating Body Core group of stakeholders with vested interests Today, space agencies with exploration programs Not a governing or a decision-making body Members make own decisions to adjust programs Associated Bodies Interested groups: Industry, scientists, other countries Two-way communication without chaotic open forum Potential stakeholders Could graduate to Coordinating Body as real vested interests emerged
International Coordination Structure Outreach Groups & Champions Affiliated Body Coordinating Body Industry Associated Body Potential Countries Associated Body Information Flow Contributions to Products and Activities Science Community Associated Body
Products Consolidated International Exploration Roadmap Aggregate of national plans Info about future missions, science goals, technology and infrastructure plans Common picture of gaps and overlaps Consolidated Roadmap Coordinated Roadmap Members make independent decisions about national programs, but can choose to be interdependent Standards to facilitate interoperability Bilateral and Multilateral Cooperative Programs Developed separately by participants
Membership/Leadership Stakeholders in Coordinating Body Senior agency program officials as members Collective leadership with rotating chair Associated Bodies Industry representatives CB specify or challenge industry to decide? Science community Incorporate existing exploration science groups Other countries Self-nomination (with screening by CB?) Vested Interest graduation criterion TBD by CB
Benefits of Coordination Process Permanent institutionalized (not ad hoc) international structure Global transparency on exploration activity Coordination to optimize overall effort Forum for engaging industry in innovative ways Mechanism to challenge companies and countries to become stakeholders Internationally integrated approach provides leverage on investments and legitimacy
Benefits,, contd. Interesting opportunities for agencies Engage countries otherwise difficult to involve Neutral forum to provide transparency on difficult policy issues (e.g., data dissemination, launch, export control) Opportunity for countries to interact on more even footing (since no management or decision-making takes place)