This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Does space exploration encourage international cooperation?
Pardon the brevity of this, I will happily answer any questions you may have.
Space exploration encourages international cooperation for several reasons: As a branch of science and technology, space exploration is subject to some of the same trends. Scientists do not care so much about what country a scientist is from as they do about their scientific achievements. Look at the LHC; it's like the ISS of particle physics. Science dismisses national identity in favor of intellectual accomplishment. Space exploration is inherently scientific; space exploration dismisses national identity in favor of intellectual accomplishment.
Honesty is required for effective cooperation between nations. You can't mess with the truth with rockets. They explode if you do. You can't fudge the numbers on orbital mechanics. You can't exaggerate your products capabilities; the difference between statement and reality will soon be obvious. Space requires honesty : international cooperation requires honesty. Space aides international cooperation by enforcing honesty.
Space requires a level of competence bordering on perfection. You can't make many mistakes with a $20 million dollar satellite, much less with people lives. Having an international pool of talent to draw upon will reduce the chance of deadly mistake.
Seeing the Earth as a brilliant blue crescent slowly spinning against the backdrop of diamond stars strewn across the depths of space can't help but to challenge ones national affiliations. You would begin to see yourself as a citizen of Earth. I haven't heard any astronaut say otherwise, and they'd be the best to know.
Space exploration encourages international cooperation by way of an inherent honesty to the enterprise, a need for the best in the world, large scale projects like the ISS, and the visceral experience of seeing the Earth from space, bolstered by the shared international qualities of science.
P C
Read "Space Race," by Deborah Cadbury; "Mars Wars," by Thor Hogan; and "Diplomacy," by Henry Kissinger; and see how nations frame their interactions with one another, how space politics influences national agendas, and the political history surrounding the evolution of rocket technology.
The US only interprets treaties to be "binding" when they limit behaviors of others in ways that further our geopolitical strategic interests. Otherwise it considers them optional. It's why the US doesn't accept mandatory UN ICJ jurisdiction. The OST will only be "binding" as long as we haven't figured out how to economically exploit the moon. Once we do, we'll probably withdraw from it or revise it to knock out its teeth.
Does space cooperation improve relations between the space-oriented intelligentsia of both nations that participate in it? Sure, but the influence is not political so much as it is economic as this same group also tends to be technological innovators. If you take a hard and sober look at national space programs, they're not designed to lead us to colonization, but are simply national trophy showcases of technological prowess designed to appeal to innovators. It's why NASA is the main agency that encourages STEM development.
But if we're talking about "international" to mean the relationship between nations, then strategic interest still determines behavior and cooperation is an after thought. I hope that when the time comes that we are ready to develop the moon, it will a global effort.
Daniel Beringer
As you said, our national space programs are not geared towards colonization. The thing to do then is to get us to a point where we are able to feasibly engage in such an endeavor. Luckily, space exploration encourages international cooperation, and the cost demands it. This does not mean that there are not other factors effecting our relations, nor does it guarantee peaceful relations. Hence the 'if' earlier. It is still an uphill battle, and our future is not certain. But we are capable of achieving that goal. The question now is, should we pursue that goal?
Daniel Beringer
Thank you for this conversation. I hope that we will one day choose to live amongst the stars.
Comment deleted
Daniel Beringer
P C
Among the reasons the OST was drafted was because both sides understood that space war would've been extremely expensive (economically wasteful), and quite frankly there were more economical ways of waging war against each other. When you look into the Russian side of space history, Stalin never believed that orbital technology could be weaponized, and even sent Sergei Korolev to Siberia prior to WWII for "diverting the Soviet intelligentsia into an economically wasteful purposes that would sap the USSR of valuable intellectual resources" (paraphrasing). But he was saved by a friend who pulled him out of Siberia, Stalin almost killed the Russian space program before it began. Even after the Russians obtained German rocket technology, Korolev had to use subterfuge to push through development program for a large rocket that could achieve orbit (he couched it in military terms). Sputnik was as much a "Sputnik Moment" for them as it was for us. When you think it economically, the OST and NNPT makes sense from a Russian point of view.
The Space Race was about global propaganda via technological prowess. In many ways it still is. We cooperated with Russians because we wanted their space station expertise but also to keep their space sector employed to prevent it from entering the black market. Notice that China has neither of these, it has no space station experience nor does it have a dysfunctional economy requiring its space sector to be subsidized from a foreign source.
Daniel Beringer
Korolov took the military aggressiveness of his nation, and used it to spark a peaceful space race. The OST was a peaceable treaty unilaterally agreeing that all Humanity should have equal rights to space. This treaty was drafted by the two nations that were bringing us closest to self-immolation. I see that as a remarkable sign of detente between us and them. The NNPT, even more so. The ASTP (SATP for my Russian friends) was a purely showpiece mission that achieved almost nothing of scientific worth. It was done almost entirely out of camaraderie and friendly aspirations. It was planned and executed during the Vietnam war, and occurred more than a decade before the fall of the Berlin wall. In the midst of desperate turmoil, these countries set aside their differences and clasped hands. Why? Space exploration.
I would also like to note the beautiful irony of this: The same technologies used in nuclear weapons both powers our deep space probes (many of which have multi-nation participation) and launches people into space (towards an international space station). Thanks to two world wars and a cold war we are working with nations spread across the globe.
All this supports my premise, that space exploration encourages international cooperation. We can learn from each other, we can share the cost, and it can divert nationalistic aggression
P C
From the perspective of von Braun and Korolev, dreaming about space exploration is what powered the military technologies. Both were dreamers that had to be pragmatic when they saw that the only economic mechanism available to achieve their goals was through the military. The exception being nuclear technology which owes its existence to physics. Coming up with Plutonium through alchemy is pretty ingenious.
My point is that you seem to mix cause and effect. I would argue that space cooperation is an effect, not a cause. Most cooperation exists between nations that are already friendly and it often serves a symbol for cooperation when we want to strengthen it. It's probably best to think of it as the cherry on top of the cake of a whole range of other issues as the ASTP illustrates.
Russia is a special case. Cooperation between us has often served as a symbolic bridge and giving their space program life support during their difficult time in the 90's scores major points. However Russia's intentions to upgrade its military over this decade may strain relations. Space cooperation may send a signal that they're not beefing up in response to Europe but China. Russia has historically been concerned about the US, Western Europe, and China (in that order) but they may be in the process of reversing their priorities. A stronger China would put Russia in a security situation it hasn't faced since the Ivan Groznyi took back land from the Kazan Khanate (a remnant of the Mongol Horde), also when it first began relations with the West.
Daniel Beringer
P C
The military side of space exploration has never been diverted and it was always believed that the space shuttle could at any time have been militarized. Hence why the military developed the X-37B when we ended the space shuttle program. We had the ASTP and Skylab because NASA had a few Titan V's left over after Congress canceled Apollo. The White House saw it as a good way to get some PR dollars out of the remaining heavy lift inventory.
The main reason we don't cooperate with China is because we know that civilian technology can be a military cover. Until Russia develops its own ABMS, modernizes its military, and beefs up its intelligence capabilities in Siberia and China, I doubt they'll share innovative space technologies, although they might share older technologies that China has already developed. It wouldn't be in Russia's strategic interest to warm up to China militarily because it's vulnerable in the east and it is over-reliant on strategic defense.
People inside the Beltway tend to think of space only as an afterthought and they tend to frame the international relations in [geocentric] realist terms. Space exploration is just icing on the cake for the intelligentsia. Space colonization is challenging because we need to convert idealism into the language of realism.
Daniel Beringer
There is no mention of fears of economic destruction, or economic anything for that matter. We had more launches of the Titan-V's, but we had one of those launches be the ASTP for friendly reasons. I snagged this http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4209/toc.htm from the NASA website. It's pretty clear that the intent was for future cooperation.
What you wrote about China and Russia is all very interesting, but didn't show whether or not coop. in space might benefit their relations. If your reasons why they won't begin to coop are sound (I don't think they are), that doesn't mean that space coop won't help them once they start.
It doesn't matter what the people in the beltway, or what the shuttle planners, or the Russian government wanted. What actually happened was a peaceful space race that lead, as you pointed out with the OST -NNPT/SALT link, to peaceful relations between us. What happened was a shuttle that built an international space station. What happens is scientists from all over the world get together and talk and chat and work together, not caring about nationality. Whether or not the beltway thinks that space is important is one thing. That space explor. encourages inter. coop is another.
I'm sorry, but I've been having trouble figuring out what your arguments actually are. Could you clearly state your arguments against my premise please?
P C
When the UN stops providing those different set of tools, and IF the US feels that exerting a claim would be in its strategic interest, it will do so. For instance, if the US developed nanites that degrade nuclear weapons of other nations it might find itself in such a position. Putting human beings on the moon would give the US a pretty strong case for claiming uninhabited territory. The big questions are can it afford it economically or defend its claims militarily. Most likely, we're going to need a new international political structure if we ever hope to colonize space.
Daniel Beringer
There are many reasons that someone may support NASA, and yes, many take a jaundiced view of space exploration, using it as a tool or at least thinking of it as political leverage. But for those who actually engage in the endeavour, for them it's something a whole lot more. Regardless of what a politician thinks NASA is or what it can do, doesn't change the nature of space exploration.
However, you present mostly supposition. To counter balance that is a series of links to the materials we have been discussing, including the OST.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/space1.html
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
I don't see how any of the documents are 'makeshift' or insubstantial. They all seem to make my points rather well. So you (and anyone else) can read them at your leisure. But I will say this, I totally and absolutely agree with you that we need a new inter. political organization if we are to colonize space. Or to put it another way, if we colonize space we will be cooperating on an international level; we will have become globalized.
Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. Check out what these two experts had to say: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/149491.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_10.html
Daniel Beringer
It is no accident that those two treaties came about close in time. The Outer Space Treaty started as an agreement between the USSR and the US, and was adopted by the UN the next year, and has as signers many nations spread across the globe. It stated that space was the province of all mankind, that it would not be a place for military operations, and no weapons of mass destruction would be allowed up there. The arms race and the space race are intimately linked. The same technology to launch nuclear warheads was used to put people into space. The same energy that powers the bomb powers our most distant spacecraft. The space race was a peaceful diversion of nationalistic aggression. I believe that it helped in no small way to the thawing of relations between US and Russia. We realized that brinksmanship was MADness, and we found a way to compete that didn't cost nearly as many lives
We are just beginning to get get to the point where international cooperation is required. The small signs of cooperation you pointed out are a sign of what's to come. I would add the international tracking stations, the international astronomical union, and the ESA to your list. The only way all bets will be off is if we (stupidly) decide to militarize space. We will have at that point encapsulated ourselves with death. So long as we maintain space as the province of all mankind we should do pretty well
P C
Daniel Beringer
So long as no single nation tries to claim that space is their dominion, we should have a pretty good shot at actually achieving something.
As for China, yes they are a bit isolationist. But I don't think they view us quite the same as we view them. I think that they think that we do a pretty good job of certain things, and I think that they think they can do it better. Good for them. A nation should be proud of the accomplishments of its people. But even China cooperates far more with space exploration than it does with pretty much any other government venture. If space exploration can push even that autocratic, isolationist state to cooperate, then what can it do for more open nations? There was a recent kerfluffle (a silly one at that) about Bolden going to China, and this link http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMKX21P0WF_index_0.html will detail one of the international projects that China is participating in. If they want to be the best, let them try to be the best, just as if we wish to be the best we would try to be the best. But China trying to be the best does not mean they will not cooperate with other nations on joint space exploration ventures. The fact that they do cooperate supports my main idea, that space exploration encourages international cooperation.
P C
More often than not, advanced nations are concerned about civilian technologies being crossed-over into military applications, and as a result rockets and a lot of other space technologies are subject to export controls. Some even go so far as to claim that rockets are a potential weapon of mass destruction. It's no accident that we had the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty follow on its heels in 1970.
For now, the vast majority of space "cooperation" deals with negotiating geosynchronous satellite slots and of course the ISS. The real problem comes when we start going beyond exploration missions and begin development. We will either be in a situation where ALL bets will be off (nations that can't afford to go into space are likely to take action on the surface and international order will break down), or, we will devise a new political mechanism that involves an element of cooperation and mutual benefit.
Daniel Beringer