Abstract
Two major geopolitical changes in the 1990s have had very different impacts on NASA’s international relations over the past 20 years. The implosion of the Soviet system and the political will to integrate Russia into the core of what became the International Space Station (ISS) produced an exception to some time-hallowed NASA policies, notably, the notions of clean interfaces and no exchange of funds. By contrast, the “leakage” of sensitive satellite and missile technology to China, and its willingness to work closely with “rogue states” like Iran, gave traction to those who believed that the United States had to be far more prudent in its international posture, above all in sharing technology.1 This led to a tighter implementation of the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) particularly as regards satellites. This added more layers of complexity and bureaucracy to international collaboration with traditional allies, and has stimulated lively debates between diverse stakeholders about the costs and benefits of implementing export controls more rigorously.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
John W. Garver, China and Iran. Ancient Partners in a Post-Imperial World (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006).
The narrative line here is due mostly to Roger D. Launius, Space Stations. Base Camps to the Stars (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2003);
John M. Logsdon, Together in Orbit. The Origins of International Participation in the Space Station. Monographs in Aerospace History #11 (Washington, DC: NASA History Division, 1998);
Howard E. McCurdy, The Space Station Decision. Incremental Politics and Technical Choice (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990).
Howard E. McCurdy, “The Decision to Build the Space Station. Too Weak a Commitment?” Space Policy 4 (February 1988), 297–306.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Selling of the Space Station,” Science 223:4638 (February 24, 1984), 793–794.
W. Henry Lambright, “Leadership and Large-Scale Technology: The Case of the International Space Station,” Space Policy 21 (2005), 195–2003, at 197. See also Logsdon, Together in Orbit, 20.
Letter Beggs to Griffen, April 12, 1984, cited by Eligar Sadeh, “Technical, Organizational and Political Dynamics of the International Space Station Program,” Space Policy 20 (2004), 171–188, at 174.
These figures were suggested in Memo, Kenneth S. Pedersen, director of international affairs to John Hodge, director, Space Station Task Force, Strategy for International Cooperation in Space Station Planning, undated, but about August 1982, reproduced in John M. Logsdon, ed., Exploring the Unknown. Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program. Vol. II. External Relationships (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4407, 1996), Document I-31, 90–100, at 99–100.
John Logsdon, “International Involvement in the US Space Station Programme,” Space Policy 1 (February 1985), 12–25, surveys the many trade-offs that such collaboration involves.
Kenneth S. Pedersen, “The Changing Face of International Space Cooperation. One View of NASA,” Space Policy 2 (May 1986), 120–135, at 131; emphasis in the original.
Niklas Reinke, The History of German Space Policy. Ideas, Influences, and Interdependence, 1923–2002 (Paris: Beauchesne, 2007), 233.
R. D. Andresen and W. Nellesen, “The Eureca Concept and its Importance in Preparing for the Columbus Programme,” ESA Bulletin 52 (1987), 57–67;
W. Nellesen, “The Eureca Project—From Concept to Launch,” ESA Bulletin 70 (1992), 17–25. See also
John Krige, Arturo Russo, and Lorenza Sebesta, A History of the European Space Agency, 1958–1987 Vol. II. The Story of ESA, 1973–1987 (Noordwijk: ESA SP-1235, 2000), 62.
F. Longhurst, “The Columbus System. Baseline and Interfaces,” ESA Bulletin 50 (1987), 88–97, 88–89.
Reinhard Loosch, “The International Space Station—The Legal Framework,” Proceedings of an International Colloquium on the Manned Space Station—Legal Issues, Paris, 7–8 November 1989 (Noordwijk: ESA SP-305, 1989), 55–58. Available at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1990ESASP.305… 55L/0000055.000.html; Sadeh, “Technical, Organizational and Political Dynamics,” 175.
J. L. Cendral and G. G. Reibaldi, “The ESA Polar Platform,” ESA Bulletin 71 (1992), 27–38.
Reinke, The History of German Space Policy, 274. See also F. Engström, J.-J. Dordain, R. Barbera, G. Giampalmo, and H. Arend, “The Columbus Development Programme,” ESA Bulletin 56 (1988), 10–18, for more details on the elements. Also
J. Collett, “The Columbus Free-Flying Laboratory—A Stepping Stone Towards European Autonomy,” ESA Bulletin 64 (1990), 29–32.
Kevin Madders, A New Force at a New Frontier (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 462.
For the station cost data, see John J. Madison and Howard E. McCurdy, “Spending without Results: Lessons from the Space Station Program,” Space Policy 15 (1999), 213–221.
For an indication of Shuttle costs, see John Krige, “The Commercial Challenge to Arianespace: The TCI Affair,” Space Policy 15 (1999), 87–94.
For ESA and Canada, see Lydia Dotto, Canada and the European Space Agency. Three Decades of Cooperation (Noordwijk: ESA HSR-25, 2002).
Steven Berner, Japan’s Space program. A Fork in the Road? (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2005), available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2005/RAND_TR184.pdf.
Joan Johnson-Freese, Changing Patterns of International Collaboration in Space (Malabar: Orbit, 1990), 89.
Sadeh, “Technical, Organizational and Political Dynamics,” 173–175; W. Henry Lambright and Agnes Gereben Schaeffer, “The Political Context of Technology Transfer. NASA and the International Space Station,” Comparative Technology Transfer and Society 2:1 (2004), 1–30, at 7–8.
Chapter 8, this volume; Sadeh, “Technical, Organizational and Political Dynamics,” 185–186. John M. Logsdon and James R. Millar, “US-Russian Cooperation in Human Spaceflight: Assessing its Impacts,” Space Policy 17 (2001), 171–178, explore the extent to which these “non-pragrammatic” goals might have been achieved.
W. Henry Lambright, “Leadership and Large-Scale Technology: The Case of the International Space Station,” Space Policy 21 (2005), 195–203, at 198.
Michael Riordan, “The Demise of the Superconducting Super Collider,” Physics in Perspective 2 (2000), 411–425. For the rivalry with Europe, see
John Krige, “Distrust and Discovery. The Case of the Heavy Bosons at CERN,” Isis 92:3 (2001), 517–540.
R. D. Andresen and R. Domesle, “The Euromir Missions,” ESA Bulletin 88 (1996), 6–12.
For more on Columbus and ESA’s contributions to the ISS, see J. Feustel-Büechl, “The International Space Station is Real!” ESA Bulletin 107 (August 2001), 11–20;
A. Thirkettle, B. Patti, P. Mitschdoerfer, R. Klezdik, E. Gargioli, and D. Brondolo, ESA Bulletin 109 (February 2002), 27–33;
Bernardo Patti, Robert Chesson, Martin Zell, and Alan Thirkettle, “Columbus: Ready for the International Space Station,” ESA Bulletin 121 (February 2005), 47–51;
Martin Zell and Jon Weems, “ESA’s ‘Real Estate’ in Space. Columbus in Orbit,” ESA Bulletin 136 (November 2008), 33–43.
P. Amadieu and J. Y. Heloret, “The Automated Transfer Vehicle,” ESA Bulletin 96 (November 1998), 14–20.
Copyright information
© 2013 John Krige, Angelina Long Callahan, and Ashok Maharaj
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krige, J., Callahan, A.L., Maharaj, A. (2013). Space Collaboration Today: The ISS. In: NASA in the World. Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137340931_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137340931_13
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-34092-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-34093-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)