Cooperation in the

1

Symposium on Space Exploration and International
Cooperation

• Cooperation in the
• International Space Station Program
• Some Lessons for the Future
• Ian Pryke
• Senior Fellow
• Center for Aerospace Policy Research
• School of Public Policy
• George Mason University

2
Acknowledgement

• This presentation is based on a paper entitled
  Structuring Future International
  Cooperation Learning from the ISS, authored
  by
• - Lynn Cline NASA - Peggy Finarelli
  ISU
• - Graham Gibbs CSA - Ian Pryke then ESA
• and originally presented at the International
  Space Universitys June 2002 Symposium Beyond
  the International Space Station The Future of
  Human Spaceflight.

3
International Space Station ISS

• The ISS is often referred to as
• The largest, most complex,
  international
• scientific and technological
  co-operation
• ever undertaken.
• As such, it can offer numerous lessons that can
  be applied in the structuring of future large
  scale international co-operative space endeavors.
  

4
Lesson 1 It is possible to craft a large
complex international space cooperation that is
multiple decades in duration.

• 1984 (January)
• 1988 (September)
• 1992
• 1993 (March)
• 1993 (December)
• 1998 (January)
• 1998 (December)
• 2000 (December)
• 2003 (January)
• 2005 (March/April)
• 2010 (?)
• 2010 (?) - ???

• President Reagans State of the Union Address
• Original IGA / MoUs signed Freedom
• Originally planned on-orbit date
• Space Station Redesign initiated
• Russia invited to join the Partnership
• Renegotiated IGA / MoUs signed ISS
• First Station element launched
• Permanent occupancy of Station initiated
• Loss of Challenger
• Station Assembly hiatus
• Access limited to Russian vehicles
• Crew size limited to two
• Current schedule for Shuttle return to flight
• Planned completion of Station assembly
• Utilization of Station

5
Lesson 2 Long-term Partnerships must be
structured so that they can evolve over time if
required.

• The Original Partnership
• The Invitation
• NASA to develop a permanently manned Space
  Station and do it within a decade.
• NASA to invite other countries to participate so
  that we can strengthen peace, build prosperity
  and expand freedom for all who share our goals
• The Friends and Allies
• Canada
• Europe Through the European Space Agency
• Japan
• The Evil Empire USSR

6
Lesson 2 Long-term Partnerships must be
structured so that they can evolve over time if
required.

• The Enlarged Partnership
• Originally
• US to build a fully functional space station.
• Partners contributions to enhance capability
  but not be on the critical path.
• Canadian waiver granted by US.
• Bringing in the Russians as a full Partner
• Required extensive re-negotiation of agreements
• Opened critical path to all non-US Partners.
• Bringing in the Italians in parallel to their
  ESA involvement and the Brazilians. Mechanism
  was foreseen - Participants .
• Genuine Partnership Each partner dependent on
  the performance of other partners.

7
Lesson 3 Partners will have different
motivations for getting involved in a program and
these motivations can evolve.

• United States
• Originally Cold War Politics
• Post Cold War - Russian Engagement
• US budgetary threats encouraged Russian
  involvement
• Resulted in re-evaluation of Partnership
• Canada
• Originally Foreseen Economic Return
• 94 - Budget deficit led to reappraisal of
  involvement
• Japan
• Interest in developing HSF capabilities
• High political priority of conducting space
  program with international cooperation
• Missed the boat on Shuttle

8
Lesson 3 Partners will have different
motivations for getting involved in a program and
these motivations can evolve.

• Europe
• European desire for a degree of autonomy in HSF
• Amortize SPACELAB investment
• HERMES / MTFF cancellation
• ISS involvement currently sole European MSF
  programme
• Russia
• Post cold war space co-operation with US grew to
  include
• Station Phase 1 Shuttle-MIR
• Station Phase 2 ISS permanent human habitation
  capability
• Station Phase 3 Assembly complete of all partner
  elements
• Russian pride in HSF capabilities
• Keep HSF program alive / engineers employed

9
Lesson 4 Accept that which cannot be changed.

• Long term, expensive space cooperation
  programs have certain inherent characteristics
  that can create problems
• Decisions to undertake taken at highest levels of
  government
• Program duration transcends political terms
• Each partner seeks political and economic
  leverage on their investment and will have
  national priorities must be accommodated
• Partnership must satisfy individual interests of
  each partner
• Compromise necessary - up to a point where
  national interests are in danger of being
  jeopardized
• Station has had to contend with
• Cost and schedule problems
• Geopolitical changes
• many of which were unanticipated but
  unavoidable.

10
Lesson 4 Accept that which cannot be changed.

• One Partners problems will impact other partners
• Annual appropriations versus multi-year
  appropriations
• Cost overruns and management changes in the U.S.
  portion of the Station program have had cost and
  management implications for other Partners
• Russians involvement
• Invitation was politically correct when made
• Expectation - Cost savings / Schedule Improvement
• Actuality - Cost increases / Schedule Delays
• Actuality - Without Russian Involvement the
  Station would probably not have survived the
  Clinton Administration and would be in serious
  trouble with the stand-down of the Shuttle

11
Lesson 5 A little bit of constructive
ambiguity never hurts.

• Partnerships must find ways to accommodate policy
• differences among partners. A Space Station
  Example
• Partners differed in their interpretation of what
  activities met the commitments they had
  undertaken in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, re.
  the use space for peaceful purposes, as
• U.S. D.o.D. insisted on being able to utilize
  the Station.
• Canada Europe Japan Wanted agreements to refer
  to a Space Station of exclusively peaceful
  purposes
• Russia In ISS re-negotiation Russia adopted same
  position as U.S.

12
Lesson 5 A little bit of constructive
ambiguity never hurts.

• Solution adopted in both negotiations Each
  Partner defines peaceful purposes in relation
  to the utilization of the elements which it
  supplies.
• Solution was memorialized in an exchange of side
  letters rather than in the agreements themselves.
• Difficult topics sometimes need to be
  finessed using
• less than precise language.

13
Conclusion

• The Overarching Lesson
• Those involved in structuring and implementing
  large scale partnerships must approach matters
  with an open mind. They must realize that they
  will not be able to identify every contingency in
  advance and hence must structure their
  cooperation with built in flexibility.