Category Archives: Space

Political Commentary, Space

The Latest Space Quarterly

4 Comments

Two articles from the current issue have been put on line for non-subscribers. One is a piece by Jeff Foust, discussing the stakes for commercial spaceflight in the upcoming COTS demonstration flights, and the other is a longer essay by Marcia Smith (who I first met at a AAS conference in Boston about thirty years ago) on the past and future of space policy, including human spaceflight. It’s a good overview, but I don’t think she’s sufficiently critical of the damaging role that Congress has played, and the role that pork, rather than actual accomplishments in space, plays in the SLS mess. She is justly harsh on the administration, whose policy making with space has been just as inept as in all else, though at least it had a more sensible policy even if it is unable to coherently articulate it. I’ve spent the last two years trying to make up for it, defending the new direction with numerous essays in various venues, but it’s hard to break through the FUD, noise and parochialism, particularly given how unimportant space policy is, as she notes herself.

Business, Economics, Space

The Developing World And Space

12 Comments

There’s a piece on space law up at the Denver Law Review on the need to help the developing world participate in space. I think it has some flawed assumptions embedded in it:

Developing states were largely left out of the creation of space law.[14] As a result, there are few accommodations in space law documents providing meaningful guarantees of inclusion.[15] Although ideas of international cooperation are in all space treaties and principles, this has little practical effect.[16] In 1996, the General Assembly directly addressed this concern by adopting the Declaration on International Cooperation for space activities.[17] This declaration reiterated ideals of international cooperation for the benefit of mankind while emphasizing “[p]articular account should be taken of the needs of developing counties”[18] and that space activities should “consider the appropriate use of space applications and the potential of international cooperation for reaching [developing states’] development goals.”[19]

Space technologies must be a part of developing states’ economic development schemes. Coupled with traditional economic development programs, space technology can bolster development goals with advances, for example, in pharmaceuticals, building materials, and food management.[20] However, despite the recommitment to developing states’ needs and interests, there has been little in the way of meaningful extra-terra cooperation. The main barrier is the staggering cost of becoming a space-faring state; if not addressed, developing states will be unable to share the benefits derived from space activity.[21] Addressing this barrier requires developed states to abide by space law principles by including developing states in meaningful space activities.[22]

First of all, there is an implicit assumption that “leaving out developing states” from the development of space law is intrinsically a bad thing, with no explanation why. I guess that it’s supposed to be obvious that it’s somehow “unfair.” Interestingly, a major goal of the 1979 Moon Treaty (which isn’t mentioned at all in the paper) was to address this “injustice.” But the other flawed assumption is that the cost of becoming a space-faring state is intrinsically “staggering.” I think that SpaceX has pretty much put the lie to that. Fortunately, at least he recognizes that we don’t (yet) have a world government that can compel spacefaring states to share in the supposed space bounty:

Because outer space is not easily accessible to all, special considerations must be made to include developing states. Even a minor space mission is a significant portion of a developing state’s annual budget.[38] Professor Ghidini argues that space research does not conform to traditional notions of “free competition” because international programs are available only to the “happy few” sponsors.[39] Space-faring states must be compelled to include developing states.[40] Cooperation on terms beneficial to developing states, therefore, is essential for their meaningful inclusion.[41]

Space-faring states, however, cannot be forced to cooperate with developing states. Outer space activities cannot be mandated by an international regime and must operate according to market forces.[42] Not only will forced cooperation create a disincentive for expensive space missions, it could also stifle competition and weaken intellectual property protections.[43] An incentive structure that protects space research’s return on investment while keeping developing states’ economic development goals in mind is the most efficient model.[44] Current bilateral agreements can operate on this market-based model. Satellite tracking facility agreements, for example, often provide information and research from the space activity in exchange for the facility’s presence.[45]

The problem is that there is an assumption that a developing nation won’t benefit from space commerce unless it is actively involved in the development of such commerce, but this is clearly nonsense. All developing countries benefit from remote sensing, GPS and communications satellites, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with their development. I really think that this is all a solution looking for a problem.