Evaluating Decision-Making Modalities and Risk Acceptance Behavior after a Major Mishap: The Case of NASA and the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident

The February 2003 loss of the space shuttle Columbia on mission STS-107 was a mishap that stunned both NASA and the world. This research examines the pre-NASA and post-NASA decision-making modalities and risk acceptance behavior for the safe and reliable operation of the space shuttle through the lens of hazard analysis. Interviews with NASA administrators and senior Space Shuttle Program managers bring back to life their views from the 2003 through 2005 timeframe, during which NASA returned the space shuttle back to a flight status. Lessons from their effort have broad applicability to other organizations recovering from—and attempting to prevent—a major accident.     

Space and Diplomacy: A New Tool for Leverage

This essay investigates how United States space systems can be used to directly achieve diplomatic objectives. While space systems are widely acknowledged as vital enablers of terrestrial-based forces, they are often overlooked as a critical component of national power capable of directly pursuing national objectives. The essay presents the Space-Diplomacy model that posits seven facets to the diplomatic power of space assets and shows when they can be effective over the spectrum of conflict: prestige, technology partnerships, access to space services, legal precedent, objective information, presence, and threat of punishment. Therefore, it is in the U.S. national interest to…use the nation's potential in space to support its domestic, economic, diplomatic and national security objectives. Report of the Space Commission During the three decades after World War II ended, on the average, U.S. armed forces were used as a political instrument once every other month. Barry M. Blechman and Stephen S. Kaplan     

Access to Space: A Strategy for the Twenty-First Century

The United States (US) launch infrastructure is at a crisis point. Human access to space embodied in the Space Shuttle is due to be phased out by 2010. Currently, there are no heavy lift, 100 ton class launchers to support the US national vision for space exploration. Medium and large expendable launch providers, Boeing's Delta IV, and Lockheed-Martin's Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles are so expensive that the Delta no longer carries commercial payloads and the Atlas is unlikely to show significant growth without equally significant cost reductions and commercial traffic growth. This set of circumstances questions US dependence on these launch vehicles for national security purposes. High cost growth also exists with small launch vehicles, such as Pegasus, and the promising new field of small and microsatellites is little developed in the US, while foreign efforts, particularly European, are expanding largely on the availability of low-cost Russian boosters. One bright point is the emerging private sector, which is initially pursuing suborbital or small lift capabilities. Although such vehicles support very limited US Department of Defense or National Aeronautics and Space Administration spaceflight needs, they do offer potential technology demonstration stepping stones to more capable systems needed in the future of both agencies. This article outlines the issues and potential options for the US Government to address these serious shortcomings.     

Export Controls and United States Space Power

This article assesses the impact of export policy on 21st century United States space power. The efficacy of current export controls in preventing the proliferation of space technologies and maintaining United States advantage is evaluated. The study finds that space launch technology has been and remains highly globalized; the United States has lost significant international communications satellite market share, but it maintains a tangible lead in position, navigation, and timing systems; and the recent growth in foreign imaging systems, both radar and optical, have eroded any advantage the United States once enjoyed. Furthermore, export controls have not appreciably slowed the internationalization of space and breaking dependency on the United States is a common underlying theme. The paper goes on to highlight the unintended consequences stemming from current policy, including limiting access to advanced technology of foreign origin, limiting access to foreign-born expertise, and adding “fog” and “friction” to the execution of programs that include foreign content. This paper finds current export control policy is incongruent with 21st century space power programs and initiatives, such as Operationally Responsive Space, Coalition Space, and “Soft” Space Power. Export control reform is suggested herein on the basis of developing a trusted community of trading partners.     

Restructuring for resilience: The NASA model

Two decades of incremental decisions have locked in a vision of human space exploration through an interdependent civil space program centered on the Shuttle and the Space Station. The program lacks the resilience necessary to contain cost overruns, schedule slips, and capability cutbacks. The result is overcommitment, which makes it difficult to sustain the program in a budget-constrained environment. Coping with overcommitment through budget cuts in space science, applications, and technology could split the post-Apollo coalition and jeopardize NASA as an institution. Alternatively, terminating the Space Station could eliminate overcommitment, strengthen NASA's political base, and facilitate restructuring toward a resilient program that is sustainable. A restructured NASA might once again become a model for other agencies.     

Law of Space Resources and Operations on Celestial Bodies: Implications for Legislation in the United States

The U.S. assertion of a right to own resources harvested from space is consistent with the distinction in international law governing analogous res communis areas between resources harvested from a common area and the common area itself. Under the Outer Space Treaty regime, private entities do not have any more right to appropriate celestial bodies than governments do. However, U.S. law does not give private entities such a right. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act’s chapter on Space Resource Commercial Exploration and Utilization generally avoids taking a position on exactly how to deal with disputes in the event the activities of entities from the United States and other states interfere with each other. The U.S. law does not assert a right to declare safety zones or otherwise exercise jurisdiction outside space objects, but doing so can, under some circumstances, be consistent with international law. Many of the specifics of what rules will govern the gathering of space resources remain undetermined, yet the act’s basic premise is correct: international law and the treaty obligations of the United States allow for the U.S. government to authorize its citizens to own resources obtained from space.     

European Union Space Initiatives: The Political Will for Increasing European Space Power

The European Union (EU) is the newest actor in the European space sector and is cultivating the political will to make Europe a world class space power comparable to the United States (US). The Galileo satellite system and the Global Monitoring for the Environment and Security space program are the most visible manifestations of this will. This article suggests that Europe can approach comparable space power if capabilities are considered rather than just budgets. The paper discusses the catalysts driving EU space initiatives, and assesses the EU's nascent European Space Policy and European Space Program, and EU organization and funding for space. Of importance are the asymmetric means for Europe to increase its space capabilities and the implications this has for the trans-Atlantic relationship with the US. The analysis is directed to the security, civil, and dual-use space sectors within the security aspects of EU space initiatives. This article also provides a baseline to track changes in EU space policy, organization, and funding dynamics.     

Exploring Space: NASA at 50 and Beyond

In 2008, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, and has been embarked on a mission to put astronauts on the moon, possibly by 2020. Is this goal “back to the future”? Or is it “the way forward” as a prelude to a mission to Mars? An advisory panel to President Obama has recommended alternatives to the moon as routes to Mars. At the time of writing, Obama has yet to decide. Of course, NASA has already arrived on Mars with robots, a tribute to the agency's remarkable technical prowess. However, the ultimate challenge would be to send men and women to Mars. Why? That, of course, is the big question. The answer lies in the human heart rather than in the rational mind. NASA's exploration of this unknown frontier has more in common with the expeditions of Columbus and Magellan than the missions of most other federal agencies. Any list of discretionary expenditures would prioritize space exploration as an extreme example of an unnecessary luxury that can be postponed. So why should NASA continue to explore space? That question takes on an acute meaning during a time of intense domestic economic and foreign policy challenges. But imagine: what would be lost to America if NASA did not exist?     

Fighting a War in Space: The Case for a Space Innovation Force

Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is gearing up to face the challenge of a contested, degraded space environment that may degenerate into a full-on battleground. The U.S. space enterprise needs to be ready to not just respond, but dominate. AFSPC’s Space Mission Force (SMF) concept, to “present space forces capable of operating in a contested and operationally limited environment,” is a start toward this goal. Leveraging a historical case study from the air domain, I suggest that the SMF focus on operator training and tactics may be fundamentally insufficient in the event of a conflict in space with a near-peer adversary. To win a war in space, AFSPC must build rapid breakaway capabilities that can asymmetrically rearrange the Space Order of Battle. This work proposes the formation of a top-down “Space Innovation Force” (SIF) to complement the bottom-up SMF. If appropriately empowered, this autonomous flat-management cadre of SIF warriors provides revolutionary technological capabilities that an enemy will be unable to counter in the near term. Establishing such a SIF cadre also encourages retention of talented technical officers.     

The Inevitability of the Weaponization of Space: Technological Constructivism Versus Determinism

The concept of national security is based on the need to maintain the safety and security of the population. In 1957, the Soviet Union was the first state to threaten this safety in space with the launch of Sputnik. Although Sputnik did not pose a credible threat, it was perceived as such by the Western world. As the space race intensified in the 1960s, efforts were made to prevent the development and use of space weapons. With the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, space weapons were effectively made unlawful, with signatories agreeing to forgo these expensive technologies. However, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, factors and efforts are beginning to converge that indicate the inevitability of space weaponization. Based on a new concept of technological development, this article proposes that as technology advances, space weaponization not only is likely, but indeed is inevitable in the near future. Grounded in the competing theories of technological determinism and social constructivism, I offer a new theory that incorporates both and introduces new components to analyze a near-future technological timeline for space weapons. I argue that the development of these weapons is inevitable and should therefore be accelerated in the United States, given the country's position as the lone superpower, to command and control the space commons. If the United States leads this drive for development, then in the end, as with thermonuclear weapons, space weapons will make the world more, not less, secure, and will contribute to the spread of democratic peace and globalized capitalism.     

Between a Rocket and a Hard Place: Military Space Technology and Stability in International Relations

Military space technology is both stabilizing and destabilizing in international relations in respect to the distinction between passive and active applications. Space has been militarized from the dawn of humanity’s entry to space, but it is presently not weaponized. Although the benefits of passive military space technology are vast and promising, access to these benefits is exclusive and dominated by certain actors, leading other states to possible destabilizing influences of insecurity. Also, the failures of space law and treaties in regulating active military space technology stand to undermine the stabilizing effects of passive military space technology if not addressed.     

Space and Security: The Emerging Role of Europe

Space systems have grown increasingly integral to the United States' national security in the post-Cold War era. The diplomatic and military leverage that space capabilities can provide is not going unnoticed by other countries. Since the collapse of the USSR, the United States has enjoyed a near-absolute dominance in space activities. Only the civilian European space program has mounted any sort of technical challenge to the United States, with little interest devoted to space military activities, but the period of US hegemony in the space military domain might come to an end. In recent years the European Union (EU) and its member states have taken numerous steps towards designing and assembling a Common Foreign and Security Policy and a coherent European Security and Defence Policy. Furthermore, several important steps toward linking security needs and space capabilities have been taken by the tandem European Union–European Space Agency and other relevant institutions. Space is now seen as an essential asset for European integration and for non-dependence in the current geo-strategic context, since space-based systems and derived information can bring necessary capabilities for autonomous decision making. The development of an integrated European space capability for security is at an early stage, but it is an ongoing process presenting some opportunities to enhance European independence and security.     

Educational Space Settlement: Mantavya

The goal of the Educational Space Settlement proposed herein, which is called Mantavya (Hindi for “to prepare the preliminary sketch”), is to act as an all-encompassing education and training hub in space. The structure is designed with an awareness of the physiological, psychological, and aesthetic needs of future colonists in space to offer an almost Earth-like environment. There are six segments of the settlement serving educational, residential, and agricultural needs, which are built up around a central axis. These segments will be used to provide education in various research and development areas, which include study of agriculture, communication, life support systems, robotics, medical sciences, material sciences, and astronomy. The variable gravity at different locations will provide new horizons of research for the inhabitants. An unpressurized region below the segmented parts of the hub will provide a microgravity training zone for space walks and disaster management.     

Reflections on Space as a Vital National Interest

The article deals with the reasons why European countries should care about lunar settlement. First, the article focuses on the issue of geopolitics of the Moon and the importance of its natural resources—both energy and non-energy—and the relevance of lunar poles. The article then discusses European Union (EU) and European Space Agency (ESA) space activities. Next, there are basic strategic considerations EU/ESA countries should follow in utilizing outer space. From a terrestrial point of view, it is mainly the issue of energy independence and, from outer space, it is the possibility of denial of access to outer space. The article concludes with the acknowledgment of a growing interest in lunar colonization around the world and that Europeans should become more assertive in their lunar ambitions, including lunar development projects, for economic and strategic reasons.     

Myth-Free Space Advocacy Part II: The Myth of the Space Frontier

Space advocates commonly compare the settling of the “space frontier” to the settling of the “western frontier” in the United States, arguing that space settlement will realize the same benefits purportedly realized by the western expansion of the United States: the generation of new cultures; the development of new technologies; and the empowerment of democratic governance. However, much of the reasoning here is based on a faulty understanding of history and on an overly optimistic view of what it will be like to live in a space settlement. Thus, I argue that ardent faith in the promises of settling the space frontier is a mythological belief, rather than a well-confirmed one.     

The Viability of Space Mining in the Current Legal Regime

ABSTRACT

Several private players have expressed their desire to mine resources in space. This posits ethical and legal concerns. Several scholars argue that space mining activities flout the national non-appropriation principle enshrined in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. However, it is the opinion of the author that space mining does not per se violate the provisions of Article II, though space mining brings forward other concerns of breach of cooperation and environmental damage. The current legal regime is not adequately equipped to address these problems. The national legislations of several countries which allow for space mining do not address these issues. Even though an international regime emulating deep seabed mining addresses some of these concerns, the current political structure is not in favor of such a development. Hence, the legal viability of any potential space mining industry is on tenuous terms.     

Imprisoned in a Tesseract: NASA's Human Spaceflight Effort and the Prestige Trap

This essay focuses on the decision by senior National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) officials at the creation of the agency to focus its efforts on human spaceflight, Moon and Mars missions, and human settlement of the solar system. Its leaders made a conscious decision to downplay space applications projects, exclusive of technological research and development, and eschew operational activities. They did so in favor of concentrating on the human exploration and development of space. In so doing, NASA fell into the prestige trap that dominated this mission in the 1950s and early 1960s. At sum it was a tesseract, a four-dimensional object, which locked NASA into a quest for ever greater space spectaculars featuring human involvement. Power and prestige, therefore, has cast a long shadow on the space agency, forcing it into a series of programs that have been oversold and undervalued.     

Space Mines: Dialectics of Legality

The development of micro-satellites, including nano-satellites, has opened up opportunities for their varied uses. One such utility is as space mines. The purpose of this instrumentality is protective and defensive to escort important space-mission vehicles. These act as security commandoes till impelled to action by anticipated threat or hostile intruder entering the path. Similarly, conventional land mines can be adapted for use on the surface of the moon. These, also termed “space mines,” can serve as proximity or peripheral defense to installations and national assets on the moon and other celestial bodies.

Space mines by their small mass and weight or nature of operation cannot be regarded a weapon of mass destruction or used as nuclear weapon prohibited under the Outer Space Treaty. Secondly, their deployment in passive defensive role does not foul with any substantive provision of space law. Nor are these prohibited by any definitional embargo. Illusioned by the apparent legality, space mines could be strategized in large configurations making outer space environment denser for safe space traffic. Modern satellites are high-cost vehicles and their operational economics cannot brook attrition.

Considering the comparable purpose and role of space mines, one needs to draw wisdom from experience with landmines or cluster bombs. These have been banned on the earth after suffering enormous losses and tragedy. Prudence ordains to learn from past mistakes and it would seem sagacious to nip the evil of space mines in the bud itself.     

The Spaces of Democracy and the Democracy of Space: A New Network Exploring the Disciplinary Effects of the Spatial Turn

There is much concern in the social sciences and humanities today about how people are connected with and responsible to those who live in distant places. Recent examples are abundant: from climate change to the cyclone that hit Burma in 2008. At the same time, new forces and personalities in the social sciences and humanities are seeking to ‘open out’ understandings of ‘the spatial’ as a concept. There is a movement to view ‘space’ as something which is more than a pre-defined container of territorial politics; instead, as often the sphere of multiplicity, difference, affect and/or post-territorial interconnections. This brief paper talks about the “Space of Democracy and the Democracy of Space” global network, which seeks to explore how these new forces of interrogation into the spatial, materiality, political and ethical connectivity are having an influence upon how people perceive of and constitute new spaces of politics and democracy today.