As potential partnerships for space programs emerge and budget cutbacks continue, opportunities for international collaborations look both promising and daunting. In the United States, there is a move toward increasing the number of smaller space science missions operating for shorter durations. Across the Atlantic, the European Union has adopted a broader role in space policy. On both sides, there is growing interest in opportunities for commercial space ventures. Budgetary constraints faced by space agencies make international missions more appealing for sharing costs, but at the same time have led to internal administrative changes that could hinder successful cooperative efforts.
Lessons learned from 30 years of U.S.-European cooperation in space
research can help address these challenges and strengthen future
programs, including large projects such as the International Space
Station, says a new report from a joint committee of the National
Research Council and the European Science Foundation. Cooperation in
space research has led to more than 100 missions, which have varied in
scope, complexity, and success. They include international scientific
achievements such as the confirmation of evidence of black holes in
the central regions of galaxies, which was provided by the Hubble
Space Telescope in 1997. The most detailed views ever obtained of the
sun’s atmosphere and corona from the Solar and Heliospheric
Observatory were achieved in a cooperative mission launched in 1995 by
NASA and the European Space Agency.
In its report, U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, the
committee examined several space missions, including 13 case studies,
and identified factors that have helped or hindered international
space ventures. The findings of this first comprehensive study of
U.S.-European cooperation in space sciences also have implications for
international scientific cooperation as a whole, the committee noted.
Elements crucial for successful international cooperation in future
space programs include the following:
First and foremost, missions should not be undertaken solely because
they are international in scope. To ensure that a mission is justified
for scientific reasons, proposals should be peer reviewed by experts
who can verify that the science is of excellent quality, meets high
international standards, is cost-effective, and benefits all countries
involved.
In joint missions, language and cultural differences between
international partners are not the only barriers that must be
overcome. One of the most important lessons learned from years of
space research was that communication problems between the engineering
and scientific communities and a lack of common objectives can disrupt
missions. Close interaction among scientists and engineers — for
example, at the design phase — is particularly important when
compromises are needed between scientific goals and technical
feasibility.
Among other aspects important for multilateral cooperation are having
clearly defined responsibilities, a sound plan for accessing and
distributing data, and obvious benefits from collaboration.
For each cooperative mission, the participating space agencies should
appoint an independent group to regularly assess the project’s
scientific vitality, timeliness, and operations. The group also should
examine whether the program should be extended or receive further
funding.
In the past, international partners signed a single agreement when
embarking on a project. The interests of all parties would be best
served, however, if additional agreements could be decided upon as the
mission’s scope is further defined and developed. The report outlines
a hierarchy of agreements that can be used for this purpose, including
letters to confirm proposed management, implementation, and scheduling
of a program.
In light of continuing budget cutbacks, the uncertainties of the U.S.
funding process, and the importance of trustworthy international
agreements for collaborative space programs, the joint committee
recommended that NASA’s funding include specific allocations for
important, peer-reviewed, moderately sized international activities.
The study was funded by NASA and the European Science Foundation, an
association of more than 60 major national funding agencies devoted to
basic scientific research in more than 20 countries. The National
Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a
private, non-profit institution that provides science advice under a
congressional charter. A committee roster follows.
Note:
