[FPSPACE] criteria for international partnerships in space

dstdba dstdba at aim.com
Sun Apr 5 16:36:54 EDT 2015


Could it be that China has indeed calculated the costs of Tiangong less or the
returns from launching it greater

than those of being a 'partner' in ISS? 

 

--

Jens Kieffer-Olsen

Slagelse, Denmark

 

Ceterum censeo NATO esse dilabendum

 

Fra: Keith Gottschalk [mailto:kgottschalk at uwc.ac.za] 
Sendt: 4. april 2015 20:40
Til: fpspace at mail.friends-partners.org
Emne: [FPSPACE] criteria for international partnerships in space

 

JimO & other friends raise an interesting thought: if international
partnerships in space raise the cost for each participating country, compared
to go  ing it alone, what are the rational criteria for STILL choosing one or
more space partners?  Taking the USG, as the state of the majority of Fpspacer
members, as an example:

1)  Foreign policy choices which are exogenous to spaceflight. Examples: The
State Dept & White House wish to defuse tensions with an enemy or ex-enemy
though the ISS. Example, the ex-USSR Russian Federation. Another example: to
build multi-dimensional relationships with NATO allies such as the UK. Another
example - to draw closer a nonaligned country, such as Brazil. India could be a
future such case.

2) The more expensive option still saves money. Example - NASA costs rise for
the US component of the ISS, versus the cost for specifically that component in
a hypothetical all-US space station. But because the USG is not funding the
entire ISS, it saves funds overall. This line of reasoning also applies to
Ariane & other ESA projects.

3) The USG & a partner are jointly developing some space technology capability
that they want to acquire for dual use somewhere else. Almost always, this is
some military use, but it is conceivable that it could be, for eg., civil IT.

4) The USG wishes to build a relationship with a foreign partner through a
space project, where their contribution is optional, because it will need that
foreign partner for a future much more expensive project, eg. a RLV, or "back
to the Moon, this time to stay" where their contribution will be essential.

   These four examples seem solid: can anyone think of other examples with a
rational case for multilateral space partnerships.

- Keith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20150405/cbc846c7/attachment.html>


More information about the FPSPACE mailing list