One of the major gaps identified in current space exploration efforts was the lack of a common international vision. Creating such a vision is not easy, especially through formal negotiations at existing institutions. The discussions are often plagued by political issues completely unrelated to peaceful cooperation in space exploration. Consequently, we have chosen to delay the creation of formal relationships until they are absolutely necessary. Instead, we examine the role of informal relationships and their successful application in several instances to date. This informal coordination is followed by a set of more formal relationships that will be required for actual mission implementation.

Rationale for the International Human Exploration Consultative Group

In 1993, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) convened a workshop on international space cooperation which found that:

Major space missions, such as a return to the Moon by humans, may be enhanced or their cost reduced if there is international cooperation on the required infrastructure. There is no coordinated, multinational mechanism in place to ensure the optimum utilization of the world's space infrastructure resources as a means of addressing current and future global challenges.

AIAA, 1993

There are currently two independent forums for the coordination of exploration efforts beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). One is the International Mars Exploration Working Group (IMEWG), which was formed in 1993. The other is the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG), which held its first meeting two years later. Both groups have links to the International Academy of Astronautics and the International Astronautical Federation. To facilitate the planning and implementation of the strategy detailed in this report, we recommend that the functions of these two groups be merged into a new International Human Exploration Consultative Group (IHECG).

Such a unified consultative group is required because the strategy outlined here focuses neither on the Moon nor Mars specifically, but considers both within a longer-term perspective that also includes the exploration and utilization of near-Earth asteroids. Combining the Martian and lunar working groups would prevent duplication of effort and lead towards the development of a common infrastructure that will eventually support human missions to many parts of the Solar System. In addition, the creation of the IHECG will provide a "fresh start" opportunity for representation of those hitherto excluded from the previous working groups, particularly commercial industry, private institutions, and emergent spacefaring nations.

Even though there is presently no political consensus to support any human spaceflight beyond the International Space Station (ISS), the need for the IHECG is immediate. We believe that an appropriate range of capabilities already exists in the global space community to at least start the first steps outlined in this strategy. What is absent is the necessary coordination system and the political will to integrate and employ these capabilities.

It would not be wise to delay the formation of the IHECG until after the official approval of human deep space missions. For a true partnership that maximizes the benefits of international cooperation, all the partners must start working together on an equal basis from the very beginning, from the conceptual planning stage through to the detailed mission design and implementation of the strategy. This would avoid some of the problems encountered with the ISS program, in which international involvement was sought only after the project was unilaterally initiated by the United States (OTA, 1995).

Objectives and Structure of the International Human Exploration Consultative Group

The objectives of the IHECG are:

• To establish a forum for the communication and coordination of human space exploration activities and to foster support for these endeavors through public outreach and educational initiatives.
   
• To foster international cooperation in human space exploration among established space agencies as well as groups hitherto excluded from previous working groups, including commercial industry, private institutions, and emergent spacefaring nations.
   
• To refine and implement the strategy for human exploration away from Earth detailed in this report.
  

As shown in Figure 3-1, the structure of the IHECG is modeled after the proven successes of existing informal ad hoc coordination panels, in particular the Inter-Agency Consultative Group (IACG) and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). IACG was formed in 1981 to coordinate the multi-national missions to Halley's Comet, and is currently coordinating the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics program. CEOS was established in 1984 to perform a similar function for international Earth observation activities.

Several important differences exist between the IHECG and its predecessors. First, the IHECG will not only coordinate existing missions but also plan future projects. In addition, the IHECG will also coordinate international activities in areas not dealt with by previous groups, including public outreach, education, and commercialization. Finally, the IHECG will have an expanded membership that includes representation from industry, private institutions, and developing nations. This will be accomplished through a two-tier system of representation. Representatives of the established government space agencies, as well as representatives from the scientific or industrial ministries of developing nations, will be called Members and comprise the first tier. The second tier will consist of Advisors who will be representatives from industry, private institutions, governmental, and non-governmental organizations, as well as any other parties with a legitimate interest in human exploration away from Earth.

As an informal group, the IHECG will have no permanent staff or office. In this manner, the benefits of international cooperation will be realized without creating a new bureaucracy. Regular meetings will take place annually and be hosted by member nations on a rotating basis. The chairperson will be a representative of the host nation. These meetings will be attended by one or two representatives from each interested party. Special meetings will be convened as required, and the location (physical or virtual videoconference) and chairing of these gatherings will be determined on an ad hoc basis. An electronic communications network, based on an e-mail distribution list, will be established in order to facilitate the exchange of information between IHECG representatives.

It should be made clear that the recommendation for the formation of the IHECG is not an endorsement for the creation of a world space agency. Such an agency would merely create a new bureaucracy without significantly improving on the cooperative system that an informal consultative group already offers. On a pragmatic note, it is also unlikely at this time that national space agencies would cede direct control over their programs to such a global body, since space activities continue to reflect important security and commercial interests. However, it is possible that the groundwork set by the ad hoc IHECG may eventually lead to a more formal association.

Beyond the IHECG

The formation of the IHECG would be an appropriate and achievable near-term "phase zero" forum for coordinating efforts during the early stages of strategy development. Once the agencies of the world begin to conclude that it is time to develop detailed integrated mission plans and hardware begins to take shape on the drawing board it may become necessary to establish a more formal structure. A discussion with officials at NASA close to the ISS program concluded that the degree of formality required by a program is very closely related to the dependency of the partners on each other, and is also coupled to the level of physical and political capital required to make the program a success (Cline, 1999).

This begs the question how such a more formal, post-IHECG organization should be assembled. The ISS provides one example for a cooperative, international organization. However, this model has experienced some serious difficulties. The ISS organization was originally designed to be flexible and to evolve over time. NASA officials acknowledge that this evolution has been challenging for all the participants, in particular those whose schedules have been affected by sporadic program changes. Comments by a Japanese distinguished lecturer at the 1999 ISU Summer Session indicated that it would be difficult for Japan to join a new space initiative like the ISS again because of the difficulties that such an international structure creates. Japan has a record of being regularly on-schedule with its commitments to the ISS program. Despite this outstanding record NASDA has been repeatedly required to request more money from the Japanese government to allow it to cope with design changes and delays caused by other ISS partners.

Some of the challenges of the ISS program can be attributed to the differences in political processes in the various participating countries as well as domestic economics. Yet, despite the differences in government and space agency organization around the world (especially with respect to the turmoil in post-Soviet Russia), countries are familiar and comfortable with the concept of the independent intergovernmental organization. However, as mentioned in the previous section, the concept of a world space agency is not considered viable, both by most space agencies and the authors of this report.

An alternative exists. During the early age of space telecommunications the governments of the world recognized that the most efficient way to provide global telecommunications services was not via cumbersome interagency relationships, but instead by forming an international consortium (INTELSAT, 1973) that would leverage the expertise of the technologically advanced nations for all who wished to contribute to the effort (INTELSAT, 1999). By opening up the participation to all nations, satellite telecommunications has had a major influence on connecting people around the world. More importantly, INTELSAT signatories were able to control the general direction and strategy of the consortium, but also allow the company to operate as one integrated unit following a tailored set of more-or-less commercial business practices . EUTELSAT, INMARSAT, and INTERSPUTNIK are also examples of treaty organizations serving a combined commercial and intergovernmental need. A common theme for all of these organizations is that without intergovernmental leadership it may not have been possible for an equivalent commercial enterprise to develop.

The authors of this report offer the following treaty-based consortia as possible future successors to the IHECG, and as possible solutions to the question of how to conduct the detailed management of the next step in the human space exploration strategy:

The Spaceflight Corporation: The primary goal of the company would be to develop and operate a cost-effective system or systems for human access to space for the benefit of the international community. The company would be chartered to consider opportunities for convergence with commercial markets and would be encouraged to market services to the commercial sector as long as shareholder (ie. governmental) needs were satisfied.

EDRC (Earth Orbit Development and Research Company): Initially a joint venture amongst the various space agencies to market access to the ISS as well as manage the national research activities of the station under contract to the ISS partner states, the company would branch out to promote the development of LEO through free flying human-tended laboratories and, should the market warrant, develop further human access to orbit, space solar power, and the utilization of extraterrestrial resources for LEO applications. Many of these activities could occur as joint ventures with other consortia, private companies, or as part of government initiatives.

MoonCorp: Primarily a means of organizing international efforts to return humans to the Moon, the company would also investigate lunar resources and consult with private enterprise regarding commercial opportunities. Signatories to this company, which may have to operate in a not-for-profit mode initially, would direct the company to provide scientific investigations and other developments as outlined in the strategy. The MoonCorp charter would specify provisions for growth as a company to include the management of trade with and provisioning of semi-permanent and permanent outposts and settlements. MoonCorp would be, in the long-term, a means for contracting the research services of the Mars Access and Research Company (MARCO).

MARCO (Mars Access and Research Company): Like MoonCorp, MARCO would be chartered by its founding signatories to provide the most cost effective access to and research on Mars. The company would make the most efficient use of worldwide talent and capabilities. The MARCO Charter or its governors may specify the degree to which MARCO works in partnership with MoonCorp or EDRC. MARCO's charter should specify provisions for growth as a company to include the management of trade with and provisioning of semi-permanent and permanent outposts and settlements.

As space economies develop, it may be possible in the future for these consortiums to spin-off commercial ventures (for example, the way ICO was spun out of INMARSAT as an independent company), or to go through a privatization process similar to the one that INTELSAT, INMARSAT, and INTERSPUTNIK are undergoing today.

Optimizing Government Expenditures and Maximizing Long-Term Return

By using consortia organized by spacefaring nations (with the inclusion of nations who wish to also participate in the exploration of space but maintain no indigenous spaceflight capability), the nations of the world can lay out specific goals that are optimally reached through formal, treaty-based, international cooperation but with an underlying commercial-based framework. This will have several major benefits:

• Space exploration will benefit from combining the best talents and capabilities in a streamlined independent organizational system under a set of guiding principles and clearly identified goals.
   
• Governments will retain autonomy for the vast majority of national space activities and research, and will retain a measure of direction and control over international efforts.
   
• The transition from government-led to commercial-led activities will be eased during each step of the strategy.
   
• The consortium will be free from the national space agency constraints to attempt new approaches in management and operations that are optimal for its mission. The consortium would remain free of institutional bias and historical precedent.

One such new approach that MoonCorp or MARCO might adopt is to target exploration activities to establish self-sustaining, or at least self-managing outposts at the earliest possible opportunity. The aim is to reduce the significant levels of ground support enjoyed by today's crews to a very minimum level of direct monitoring and involvement. Once the outpost is able to manage on its own, the costs associated with such an activity may be reduced to small fractions of current budgets. Ideally, the outposts may be equipped to provide for their own sustenance and growth.

In conclusion, the most cost-effective way for human space exploration away from Earth to proceed will be to acknowledge the need to develop effective international cooperation, first through informal ad hoc groups like the IHECG, and then leading eventually to formal, independent mission-focused consortia and companies. The long-term costs of exploration are minimized and the benefits maximized by encouraging the development of self-managing and eventually self-sufficient outposts at the earliest possible opportunity.

NEXT >