Summary Report

PREAMBLE

A trilateral workshop on space cooperation hosted by the Space Research Committee (SRC) of the Science Council of Japan—and including representatives of the Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) of the Space Studies Board (SSB), National Research Council (NRC), and the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) of the European Science Foundation (ESF)—was held in Tokyo at the Science Council of Japan on May 19-21, 1999. The purpose of the workshop was to:

  1. Assist independent space science advisory bodies in Europe and the United States to establish a relationship with like bodies in Japan;

  2. Begin this relationship by examining the nature of trilateral, cooperative space missions conducted during the last decade;

  3. Understand better the primary factors that led to successful collaboration, explore the benefits and costs of cooperation, and identify major problems; and

  4. Review the status of several embryonic projects and consider broader issues such as the possibility of coordinated, international strategic planning for space science and other policy issues likely to be significant in the future.

INTRODUCTION

The trilateral workshop originated, in part, from a joint SSB/CISP-ESSC study, U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, which recognized the need to consider interactions with other spacefaring partners such as Russia and Japan.1 Following publication of the joint study in 1998, both the ESSC and the SSB/CISP began to pursue relations with space science entities in Japan and agreed to initiate communications together. The SSB and ESSC identified the SRC under the Science Council of Japan as a similar entity with which to establish relations. Initial discussions among representatives of the SRC, SSB, and ESSC were held at the 32nd Scientific Assembly of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) on July 16, 1998, in Nagoya, Japan, and led to an agreement to hold a tripartite workshop on space cooperation. The general scope of the workshop, which was to include surveys of three cooperative missions, analysis of the lessons learned from such missions, and discussion on how to improve future cooperative missions, was agreed upon in Nagoya (see Appendix A). Specifically, the workshop would include U.S., European, and Japanese perspectives on each of the missions to be surveyed. In addition, the workshop would focus on space science (astronomy and astrophysics, planetary sciences, and space and solar physics), recognizing that other disciplines and areas of cooperation might be studied later. The workshop agenda and a list of participants are included in Appendix B.

Professor A. Nishida, chair of the SRC and director general of the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), selected Geotail, Yohkoh (previously Solar-A), and the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA; previously Astro-D) as the three cooperative missions to be examined.2 Planning for the workshop entailed identifying individuals from the

1  

See National Research Council and European Science Foundation, U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, p. 11.

2  

Geotail, launched in July 1992, is exploring the geomagnetic tail of Earth. Yohkoh was launched on August 31, 1991, as an observatory to study X-rays and gamma rays from the Sun. ASCA, launched on February 20, 1993, is Japan's fourth cosmic X-ray astronomy mission; it is conducting X-ray spectroscopy of astrophysical plasmas and features such as emission lines and absorption edges.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT Summary Report PREAMBLE A trilateral workshop on space cooperation hosted by the Space Research Committee (SRC) of the Science Council of Japan—and including representatives of the Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) of the Space Studies Board (SSB), National Research Council (NRC), and the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) of the European Science Foundation (ESF)—was held in Tokyo at the Science Council of Japan on May 19-21, 1999. The purpose of the workshop was to: Assist independent space science advisory bodies in Europe and the United States to establish a relationship with like bodies in Japan; Begin this relationship by examining the nature of trilateral, cooperative space missions conducted during the last decade; Understand better the primary factors that led to successful collaboration, explore the benefits and costs of cooperation, and identify major problems; and Review the status of several embryonic projects and consider broader issues such as the possibility of coordinated, international strategic planning for space science and other policy issues likely to be significant in the future. INTRODUCTION The trilateral workshop originated, in part, from a joint SSB/CISP-ESSC study, U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, which recognized the need to consider interactions with other spacefaring partners such as Russia and Japan.1 Following publication of the joint study in 1998, both the ESSC and the SSB/CISP began to pursue relations with space science entities in Japan and agreed to initiate communications together. The SSB and ESSC identified the SRC under the Science Council of Japan as a similar entity with which to establish relations. Initial discussions among representatives of the SRC, SSB, and ESSC were held at the 32nd Scientific Assembly of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) on July 16, 1998, in Nagoya, Japan, and led to an agreement to hold a tripartite workshop on space cooperation. The general scope of the workshop, which was to include surveys of three cooperative missions, analysis of the lessons learned from such missions, and discussion on how to improve future cooperative missions, was agreed upon in Nagoya (see Appendix A). Specifically, the workshop would include U.S., European, and Japanese perspectives on each of the missions to be surveyed. In addition, the workshop would focus on space science (astronomy and astrophysics, planetary sciences, and space and solar physics), recognizing that other disciplines and areas of cooperation might be studied later. The workshop agenda and a list of participants are included in Appendix B. Professor A. Nishida, chair of the SRC and director general of the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), selected Geotail, Yohkoh (previously Solar-A), and the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA; previously Astro-D) as the three cooperative missions to be examined.2 Planning for the workshop entailed identifying individuals from the 1   See National Research Council and European Science Foundation, U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, p. 11. 2   Geotail, launched in July 1992, is exploring the geomagnetic tail of Earth. Yohkoh was launched on August 31, 1991, as an observatory to study X-rays and gamma rays from the Sun. ASCA, launched on February 20, 1993, is Japan's fourth cosmic X-ray astronomy mission; it is conducting X-ray spectroscopy of astrophysical plasmas and features such as emission lines and absorption edges.

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT United States, Europe, and Japan who had worked on these missions and would share their insights on the cooperative experience. Speakers were asked to focus on the lessons learned from the missions and on aspects of mission success and to elaborate on any problems within the collaboration, as well as on other concerns and issues that might affect future cooperative activities. Speakers were provided with a template of questions to guide them in preparing their remarks (see Appendix C). The speakers at the workshop rated collaborations on all three missions as successes, although there were also lessons learned. LESSONS LEARNED Framework Lessons extracted from the mission surveys were sorted into five general categories: Personal issues such as trust, openness, language, leadership, cultural differences, sharing of credit within a joint project, and the equality of the relationship; Legal, political, and institutional issues such as negotiation of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and cross-waivers of liability, the role of umbrella science and technology agreements, 3 export controls, data management agreements, continuity of resources, up-front planning funds, and differing policy processes; Organizational patterns including relations among scientists, engineers, and operational personnel; projectinitiation and development; data access and publication norms; initiation of the cooperative activity; and the process for conceiving and developing new collaborative projects; Scientific interest and technical issues including community interest in the subject; equality or complementarity of capabilities among partners; the eight criteria for successful cooperative missions identified in the U.S.-European report;4 and the payoffs of cooperation (e.g., exposure to different approaches and expanded opportunities); and Other issues such as privatization; the impact of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) “faster, better, cheaper” philosophy on international cooperation; the effect of differing patterns of in-house versus contract development and NASA centers versus universities; the validity of cost savings from cooperation; and relationships to military activities. Highlights of the Lessons Learned from Geotail, Yohkoh, and ASCA Personal Issues Language and cultural barriers among mission scientists were cited frequently as a challenge in cooperating on the Geotail, Yohkoh, and ASCA missions (see Appendix E, Culhane, Section 2.1). Some workshop participants noted that communication, at times, was more difficult when involving scientists and engineers together. However, the challenge of maintaining clear communication between scientists and engineers is not unique to international 3   The Department of State negotiates bilateral framework or umbrella agreements on science and technology with foreign governments. These agreements are formulated to be consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives. (See U.S. General Accounting Office, Information on International Science and Technology Agreements, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April 1999.) 4   U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, pp. 102-104.

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT collaborations.5 In the cases of Geotail, Yohkoh, and ASCA any language and cultural obstacles were largely overcome with the help of strong interpersonal relations, leadership, and constructive personalities. People, either individually in leadership roles or collectively in science working groups, or at a grassroots level in the community, are critical to the success of cooperative space activities. Strong leadership in the Japanese program was cited as a particularly important element in the effective working relations established among the partners. In addition, several workshop participants remarked on grassroots cooperation and scientist-to-scientist relations as a fundamental building block in conceiving collaborative activities and in bringing them to fruition. This history of working relationships among scientists, often cultivated through international scientific meetings, also served to engender the shared views and excitement about science goals so essential to overcoming the obstacles present in joint projects. Although people were felt to be the drivers behind good cooperation, there were, in some cases, consequences related to staffing limitations. For example, workshop participants commented that limited budgets at ISAS require staff and, in some cases, visiting scientists to fill many roles, such as alternating shifts on spacecraft operations. Although the operations are often delegated to students and younger science team members, some of the non-Japanese participants believed that these activities diverted talent and human resources from scientific analysis of the mission data. They therefore believe that the extra time and responsibilities such as handling spacecraft operations entitle their mission scientists to a longer “blackout” period in which to prepare for publication. However, the Japanese participants also emphasized that these operational activities encourage mission scientists to design their missions for easy operability and result in careful attention by mission scientists in operating “their” missions. Differing agency situations have required patience and flexibility from partnering scientists. Legal Issues The legal problem most often encountered in international space cooperation is the U.S. government approval process for MOUs required for each cooperative project. Until now, the primary stumbling block has been agreement over granting of immunity from liability required by NASA (see Appendix D, Nishida, Section 5.0; Acuna, 4.0, 5.0). For constitutional and structural reasons, most other countries, and notably Japan, cannot easily meet the U.S. requirement. MOU approval within the U.S. government requires what is called the Circular 175 process, managed by the State Department and requiring sign-off by all government departments or agencies that have responsibility for issues that arise on the project.6 The time needed tends to be substantial, in part because of the issues involved, in part simply because the process is inherently a bureaucratic one on issues not at the top of the agenda for most agencies. In fact, this process, although it has not yet scuttled any project, results in nerve-wracking hassles, last-minute approvals, and even program delays. Workshop participants questioned whether the procedures could be deterring the initiation of new projects or inhibiting the realization of some targets of opportunity. 5   See U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, p. 107, “Because of the observed intellectual distance among scientists, engineers, and managers, good communication among these team members is an important ingredient of successful and smooth international cooperation. These interface problems are more critical in international cooperation, because of the added barriers of culture, language, and agency procedures that can further impede effective communication.” 6   U.S. General Accounting Office, Information on International Science and Technology Agreements, April 1999, p. 2.

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT Looking ahead, some workshop participants also expressed concern that new or intensified export controls on technology and differing approaches to intellectual property rights will make the MOU approval process even more difficult. Geotail scientists from the United States, for example, encountered serious problems in attempting to get needed instruments and technology both out of the United States and into Japan for the project. Some workshop participants and contributors who worked on Geotail questioned whether the mission would have been possible under current export control stipulations (see Appendix D, Acuna, 4.0)7. Organizational Patterns Agreements for handling the software for data analysis on cooperative missions can have lasting effects on access to and use of the data long after the primary mission ends. Both the Yohkoh and ASCA missions made significant contributions to software for data analysis in their respective disciplines. The ASCA mission led to the development of a software system for analyzing X-ray astronomy data based on a multi-mission concept (i.e., these were generic software tools applicable to different missions). Further, the team went on to establish standard data formats that have been adopted worldwide for several X-ray astronomy missions (see Appendix F, Hughes, 2.0). On Yohkoh there were at the start of the project notable differences among the participating parties in their approaches to software development. However, planning and dialogue led to agreement on constructing a unified software structure (known as SolarSoft) that complements ongoing data analysis and instrument calibration (see Appendix E, Culhane, 3.0, and Hudson, 3.4). The SolarSoft system was one of the exceptionally valuable outcomes of Yohkoh; however, its development had to evolve significantly during the mission. For example, Japanese researchers had written several large programs in FORTRAN, and their adaptation to achieve compatibility with SolarSoft required significant time and effort (see Appendix E, Hudson, 3.2). Problems of this kind have been encountered in other missions such as the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. Will changing intellectual property and technology transfer policies make benefiting from these shared, cooperative software developments more difficult? Issues pertaining to data rights and access to the data were tricky and raised concerns within the scientific community at large. Workshop participants described a situation in which the lack of a guest investigator program on Yohkoh at first created a perception within the United States that Japan was attempting to protect the data (see Appendix E, Hudson, 3.3) when in fact NASA funds had not been approved to establish such a program. In accordance with Japanese practice, the requirement for all Yohkoh team scientists to participate in satellite operations significantly reduced the time available for team members to analyze the data. The problem was addressed by establishing a 1-year reserved data policy with data rights restricted to the Yohkoh team. This in turn raised the question in the United States of whether Japan was holding the data too closely (see Appendix E, Culhane, 2.3; Hudson, 3.3, 3.4). This question was not as significant for the United Kingdom, where the Japanese method of operating the mission could be explained more easily to the smaller U.K. community. These issues, which stemmed from differences in mission operation philosophy between Japan and the United States and Europe, pointed to a potential for misunderstandings but were not seen as major obstacles in the cooperative efforts. An overall lesson that emerges on organizational patterns from the Yohkoh experience is the importance of making clear agreements on the data rights of the collaborating parties in the early stages of mission development. Other concerns on the organizational aspects of Geotail, Yohkoh, and ASCA identified during the workshop point to issues that can arise in the selection of instrumentation. Should the 7   See U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls, The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 120-130), April 12, 1999.

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT choice be made on the basis of the “best science” or to advance national capability in instrument technology? Participants commented that on ASCA, and now on Astro-E, hardware contributions were awarded to Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Goddard Space Flight Center through unsolicited proposals to NASA on the basis of procuring the best instruments available. Although scientists at the workshop believed that the excellence of the ASCA instruments is well accepted, the lack of competitive peer review raised concerns about future missions such as Astro-G (see Appendix F, Hughes, 3.0)8. The approach for Geotail was a mix: to select instruments for technological capability while flying similar Japanese instruments with less flight experience or “heritage” to develop Japanese technology. This issue of “best science” versus building national capability was not resolved within the workshop and reflected a deep although understandable tension. Scientific and Technical Interests Beyond the underlying impetus to seek answers to intriguing questions in space science, workshop participants noted several scientific and technical payoffs for cooperation. In particular, the opportunity for international cooperative missions to fill gaps in various national programs is a little recognized but important contribution. ASCA, for instance, filled a gap between the Einstein Observatory (1978-1981) and the recently launched Chandra (previously AXAF) X-ray astronomy observatory. Similarly, ASCA's contributions to provide “proof of concept” for Chandra technologies and on-orbit instrument operations cannot be overestimated (see Appendix F, Hughes, 2.0). Scientists who have participated in trilateral collaborative missions note the potential value of involving both scientists and engineers in meetings on cooperative missions. Of more consequence, some workshop participants mentioned that scientists working on Geotail and Yohkoh were involved in the instrument design and construction, particularly on those instruments built in Japan. They considered this scientist-engineer approach to instrument development a successful practice: Engineers were better able to design instruments that reflected the scientific intent and approach for the instrument, and scientists acquired more in-depth understanding of the instruments and hence a better, more accurate approach to calibrating and validating the instrument data. The decision to include Japanese collaborators in non-Japanese instrument fabrication also eliminated a “black box” style of management (see Appendix F, Makishima, 1.0) and thereby helped foster the openness and exchange of information critical to collaboration. Scientists involved in the Geotail, Yohkoh, and ASCA missions noted that disseminating project results at a wide range of levels ranging from peer-reviewed journals at one end to informal newsletters at the other has been quite valuable. For example, the soft X-ray instrument science team on Yohkoh created a weekly Web journal including “science nuggets” to encourage much broader scientific interest and further analysis of the data. The ASCA team issues a newsletter as well. Workshop participants stressed the importance of highlighting the collaborative nature of a mission within these outreach efforts, in press releases, Web sites, and public interest materials (see Appendix F, Hughes, 3.0). 8   The Space Studies Board has, in fact, noted in its reports the need for competitive procurement and peer review on technology developments. See Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 21-22. See also Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Managing the Space Sciences, National Academy Press, 1995, p. 68.

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT BOX 1 Key Elements for Successful International Space Cooperation As Recommended in the 1998 NRC-ESF Report Recommendation 1 The joint committee recommends that eight key elements be used to test whether an international mission is likely to be successful. This test is particularly important in the area of anticipated and upcoming large missions. Specifically, the joint committee recommends that international cooperative missions involve the following: Scientific support through peer review that affirms the scientific integrity, value, requirements, and benefits of a cooperative mission; An historical foundation built on an existing international community, partnership, and shared scientific experiences; Shared objectives that incorporate the interests of scientists, engineers, and managers in common and communicated goals; Clearly defined responsibilities and roles for cooperative partners, including scientists, engineers, and mission managers; An agreed-upon process for data calibration, validation, access, and distribution; A sense of partnership recognizing the unique contributions of each participant; Beneficial characteristics of cooperation; and Recognition of the importance of reviews for cooperative activities in the conceptual, developmental, active, or extended mission phases —particularly for foreseen and upcoming large missions. SOURCE: Excerpted from National Research Council and European ScienceFoundation, U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, p. 4. Comparison with NRC-ESF Report The workshop participants endorsed seven of the eight criteria stated in the first recommendation of the 1998 report U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, published by the NRC and ESF (see Box 1). For example, the participants agreed that peer review, shared objectives, and clearly defined responsibilities were important to conducting successful international collaborations. In addition, the “historical foundation” of international scientific relationships was viewed as an important component of successful cooperative activities. As mentioned under “Personal Issues” above, the workshop attendees also agreed that “the history of working relationships among scientists, often cultivated through international scientific meetings, also served to engender . . . shared views and excitement about science goals . . . .” There was little support for periodic international mission reviews noted in the last criterion, which participants felt could be intrusive and burdensome. Cost-benefit enhancement, frequently cited as a motivation for cooperation, was also discussed with some contention. Some participants stressed that the enhancement of mission capability should be the economic driver of cooperation, rather than immediate cost savings. Often, cost savings over multiple missions can far outweigh initial project costs. For example, the contribution of U.S. charge-coupled devices (CCDs) on the ASCA mission amounted to $4.6 million. Yet the benefits, in terms of the proof of concept for the technology, improved estimates of CCD shielding requirements, and the need for extensive preflight calibration, among other benefits, amounted to experience worth much more than the $4.6 million financial contribution in the design of the CCD instrument on the U.S. Chandra mission (see Appendix F, Hughes, 2.0).

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT Scientists involved in Geotail, Yohkoh, and ASCA remarked positively about an “international payload line,” a small, flexible budget line in the Explorer program that once existed but does no longer (Appendix F, Hughes 1.1; Appendix E, Culhane, 1.3). They commented on the value that a small fund in NASA would have for “up-front” support for project initiation and planning prior to peer review. A budget line of this sort, the bilateral programs line, has been introduced recently in the United Kingdom (Appendix E, Culhane, 2.0). The absence of such funds in the United States presents a considerable barrier to initiating cooperative projects that would otherwise be desirable and similarly affects the ability to capitalize on targets of opportunity. The U.S.-European report echoes this sentiment and recommends the importance of having a small budget for peer-reviewed, international cooperative space science activities.9 As budgets for space agencies become increasingly tight, there may be a growing number of programs that could not be undertaken without a major technical and financial contribution from one or more international partners. FUTURE ISSUES Strategic Planning and Long-term, International Coordination Another issue that emerged in the workshop has to do with shared, or informed, strategic planning for space science among leading space nations. This can be a vexing subject, as spacefaring powers make plans more or less independently of the plans of others. NASA may have provided such a vehicle by inviting foreign participation in its Space Science Advisory Committee meeting on July 28-30, 1999. Other partnering agencies agree on the desirability of coordinating strategic planning among their advisory bodies and are also inviting international participation in strategic planning meetings. One question that arose during the workshop was whether there ought to be some kind of international discussion forum for space science strategic planning, perhaps as a single workshop or as a continuing scientific group. There was no resolution, although the idea of a permanent group was not received with any enthusiasm. The ESSC hopes to mount a workshop on methodologies for international cooperation that will consider this subject; representatives of the SSB and SRC will be invited to participate. Closer interaction among nations in their strategic space planning will be increasingly important in the future, especially for large-scale space missions. Increased interaction among partnering agencies and the international scientific community might address specific aspects of the planning process by attempting to better arrange alignments of announcements of opportunity (AOs) for the NASA Explorer program with the planning schedules of cooperative partners. In addition, workshop participants noted that establishing guest observer and guest investigator programs for the international community might increase the community's involvement in the missions. Further, they discussed the possibility that proposal mechanisms other than Explorer AOs may be required for important collaborative projects that do not address Explorer-type missions. 9   See U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, p. 108, “In light of the continuing scarcity of future resources, the volatility of the U.S. budget process, and the importance of trustworthy international agreements supporting cooperative efforts in space, the joint committee recommends that international budget lines be added to the three science offices within NASA to support important, peer-reviewed, moderate-scale international activities.”

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT Other Issues The workshop also addressed additional future operations and issues. One is the effect on international cooperation of NASA's “faster, better, cheaper” approach to conducting missions. That policy raises the prospect that international cooperation may be “frozen out” simply as a result of time and budget constraints. The SSB is beginning an examination of this NASA approach. If the SSB cannot consider this aspect of the policy in depth, the CISP believes a separate effort should be undertaken. The ESSC is planning a similar study from a European perspective. Another subject seen as requiring further attention was the impact of new national and international policies toward intellectual property rights. The full scope of the changes under way is not clear, yet the effect on space cooperation, in fact even on the national conduct of space science, could be severe. In the missions addressed during the workshop, the principal intellectual property question was how much lead time mission scientists should have with the instrument data before they are distributed to the public. Questions involving intellectual property rights will certainly be more difficult when considering other collaborative space activities in view of the intense commercial interest in communications, Earth observations, and propulsion systems. A third “future” issue identified is the need to consider coordinating international policies about forward and back contamination and the documenting, archiving, and preservation of planetary samples. There is much attention to this issue in the United States.10 Is there adequate attention to harmonizing the policies among other spacefaring nations? SOME QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Lessons learned from past experience are useful only when they can guide or improve future cooperative activities. Some workshop participants remarked that upcoming international cooperative missions, which involve more complex instruments and spacecraft than the missions conducted in previous years, may require new approaches to international collaboration that build on lessons learned (see Appendix E, Culhane, 4.0; Appendix F, Hughes, 3.0). The workshop discussion pointed to a series of practices that may be considered to improve the overall cooperative experience involving the United States, Europe, and Japan across the space science disciplines and identified questions for possible exploration: The benefits of language and cultural training for corporate managers and executives involved in international relations have been well documented.11 Similarly, workshop participants recognized the importance of helping scientists and engineers who will engage in international cooperation to be aware of the culture and political processes of their prospective partners. 10   See the following Space Studies Board reports: Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998; Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations, National Academy Press, 1997; and Biological Contamination of Mars: Issues and Recommendations, National Academy Press, 1992. 11   See National Research Council, Office of International Affairs, Maximizing U.S. Interests in Science and Technology Relations with Japan, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1997, and Robert E. Scott, Expatriate Adjustment and Performance: A Research Report, Integrated Resources Group, Abilene, Texas, 1997. See also National Research Council, Engineering Tasks for the New Century: Japanese and U.S. Perspectives, National Academy Press, 1999, pp. 71-78, which discusses the importance of language and cultural skills for enabling engineers to work effectively in international settings.

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT In international as well as national programs, multimedia and multilevel approaches to disseminating mission results are desirable for promoting use of the mission results by a broad range of the scientific community and the public. The workshop emphasized that establishing a variety of means for dissemination of results, including peer-reviewed publications, newsletters, and information posted on the World Wide Web, has been effective. Participants noted that the cooperative programs analyzed in the workshop showed that cooperative space missions can provide an opportunity to learn different cultural approaches to technology and data analysis as well as maximize scientific output. Although it is difficult to quantify such advantages, other than anecdotally, the experience in the three programs was indicative of the benefits that can be realized (see Appendix F, Makishima, 4.0). Several questions were raised in the workshop that deserve further consideration. For example, can the difficulties engendered by nationally based peer review be mitigated so as to more easily accommodate international research collaboration? Are there practical ways of developing more informed and collaborative strategic planning so as to help identify opportunities for space collaborations? CLOSING THOUGHTS The Workshop on Space Cooperation proved a useful forum for highlighting lessons on the cooperative experiences among the United States, Europe, and Japan gleaned from a decade of efforts on the Geotail, Yohkoh, and ASCA missions. The speakers and participants were well prepared and the discussions pertinent and focused. The workshop was considered a success in all respects and certainly forged new relationships between and among the ESSC, SSB, and SRC that are expected to grow over the coming years. In a workshop on lessons learned, the issues not mentioned or not noted with concern can be as valuable as the successes and problems illuminated. For example, little if anything was said about the effect of differences among partners in political structures (except for clearance of MOUs, waivers of liability, and export licenses), space agency procedures, and mission budgets on the international cooperative experience.12 Furthermore, issues did not arise with respect to national trends toward privatization of certain space operations; patterns of in-house versus out-of-house contract development; or partnerships among government, federal laboratories, and industries. Again, interactions among government, industrial, and academic entities will likely differ when collaboration is explored in such areas as Earth sciences, and life sciences and microgravity research. Perhaps one of the lasting effects of international cooperation is the indelible impression the experience makes on the individuals participating. Scientists at the workshop called attention not only to the technical and scientific gains of working together but also to the underlying dynamics of intercultural exchange within the cooperative space research arena. These aspects of international collaboration are integral to the success of the project and to the enrichment it provides personally and professionally to those involved. It is clear that aside from the sometimes fickle attitude that governments and space agencies may have toward international cooperation, the individuals who participate in the missions convey appreciation for the scientific opportunities and achievements gained, the experience acquired, the enthusiasm shared, and the broadened perspective that comes from an international approach to space activities. 12   Professor Nishida provided a comprehensive explanation of the ISAS procedures for planning and selecting missions. Professors Culhane and Bagenal explained the ESA and NASA processes, respectively.

OCR for page 1
U.S.-EUROPEAN-JAPANESE WORKSHOP ON SPACE COOPERATION: SUMMARY REPORT This page in the original is blank.