U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science (1998)

The Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) of the Space Studies Board (SSB) and the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) were charged by the National Research Council (NRC) and the European Science Foundation (ESF), respectively, with conducting a joint study on U.S.-European collaboration in space missions. The study was initiated jointly by the SSB and the ESSC after discussions over several years on the increasing importance of international activities and the need to assess previous experience. This study was conducted by a joint SSB-ESSC committee.

The joint committee's central task was to analyze a set of U.S.-European cooperative missions in the space sciences, Earth sciences from space, and life and microgravity sciences and to determine what lessons could be learned regarding international agreements, mission planning, schedules, costs, and scientific output. Although the charge is largely retrospective and relies on existing or past missions, the joint committee found that in some cases, missions in the development stage offered the best (or only) examples that met the study criteria set forth later in this chapter. The joint committee also determined that though a retrospective study was requested, lessons learned from the analyses must be considered within a prospective context to be relevant to future cooperative activities. Although many new cooperative U.S.-European programs are being planned, an analysis of these programs would be premature and beyond the scope of this study.

The U.S.-CREST study¹ points out that over the years, space activities have been driven by four basic motivations: (1) national security and defense, (2) economic payoff, (3) new knowledge and experience, and (4) increasing the public good. As examples, the U.S. Apollo program was motivated primarily by the first, national security, including leadership and prestige. Communications satellites are perhaps the best examples of the second category, space activity for economic payoff. (Operational Earth observation satellites fall partly into the same

category.) Space and Earth science programs conducted from space are the foremost examples of the third motivation, and meteorological satellites are an excellent example of the fourth.

From the perspective of international cooperation, it is important to note that there tends to be less difficulty when the motivations of the cooperating partners are the same, or at least known to each other and compatible. An in-depth assessment of the basic motivations for cooperation and agreement on objectives, share of responsibilities, schedule, and financial framework is a precondition to the success of any cooperative effort, particularly any large-scale one. Such an assessment allows for effective, realistic negotiations before the program begins, although this may not suffice, as discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Among the reasons for international cooperation in the space sciences are the following:

• Improved scientific results from the sharing of experience, resources, data, and knowledge;
• Enhanced and diversified opportunities for space research;
• Reduction of costs for each participant through cost sharing. Cost sharing has generally included in-kind payments such as payload launches, instruments or facilities, operations support, tracking, and data collection and dissemination;
• Enhanced chances of obtaining program or project approval and seeing it through to a successful conclusion;
• Provision of access to unique capabilities, facilities, or locations;
• Stimulation of technology development;
• Access to new technologies; and
• Improved international relations.

As a result of these incentives, space science has enjoyed a particularly long history of cooperation. Indeed, the entire space science program began as a cooperative effort with the 1957-1958 International Geophysical Year. This report furthers the interest in cooperation by deriving lessons learned as to why some U.S.-European cooperative efforts have been more successful than others. From these lessons learned, the committee hopes to improve international cooperation in the future and to enable better use of the available funds for space research. The heart of the report is a set of case studies of cooperative space science missions conducted in a “bottom-up" manner with the collaboration of European and U.S. officials who were actively engaged in carrying them out. The case studies are divided into three areas: classic space science,² Earth science conducted from space, and microgravity research and life sciences (MRLS; see Box 1.1). This allowed the committee to compare the similarities and differences among these studies in terms of boundary conditions, substance, and procedure. The unique aspects of each of these three areas are significant and warrant individual investigation.

It is recognized that cooperation in space research occurs worldwide, with notable contributions from many countries. From this broad view, U.S.-European cooperation is a subset (albeit an important one) of the whole. This study focuses on the United States and Europe because of the long history of cooperation between the two. They present a complex history of variables to analyze and understand (particularly when programs with individual European countries are included) and can provide lessons for the wider community as well. Further study of the more far-reaching aspects of cooperation that are not included here, as well as experiences acquired through cooperation with such space-faring partners as Japan and Russia, may be undertaken in the future.

Technically, cooperation means combining the efforts of two or more countries in an integrated project (large or small) to reach a common set of objectives; coordination means linking two or more relatively independent projects to enhance their scientific return; and collaboration means joining the efforts of two or more scientists or other individuals to achieve a common set of objectives. For the purposes of this report, however, cooperation is used as a generic term denoting international participation in a project.

More than a hundred missions have involved various levels of U.S.-European cooperation in space research, some of which vary greatly in scope, complexity, and the types of cooperation and management approaches used. Some missions were quite successful, others failed, and several projects never achieved fruition. It was therefore impossible to review and analyze all of these missions within the scope of this report. The joint committee decided to restrict the study to the following:

• Past missions that could be extended to missions in the development stage when no other examples were available or when the missions illustrated specific lessons learned;
• Missions resulting from cooperation between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) or between NASA and one or several European nations;
• Missions that differed in scope and complexity, from principal investigator (PI)-type to multipurpose and observatory types;³
• Missions corresponding to different types of cooperation; and
• Cooperative efforts that succeeded and those that failed.

It is clear in retrospect that the types of cooperation that have taken place have been largely dependent on the technical maturity of the respective participants and the political and economic environment. Therefore, a synopsis of each to establish historical context is necessary.

The remainder of this report contains three chapters. Chapter 2 gives an overview of past cooperation in space research between the United States and Europe. Its aim is to provide the reader with a feeling of the importance of U.S.-European cooperation, to establish the context of its evolution, and to identify how cooperation is established and fostered. Thus, Chapter 2 sets the stage for this study. It turns out that the different structures within which agencies operate and each agency's particular funding and decision-making processes play very important roles. They are therefore presented at the end of Chapter 2 to give a complete picture of the importance of U.S.-European cooperative efforts.⁴

Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to the analysis of missions and the identification of the most significant lessons learned, from which recommendations are made to improve cooperation in future missions. Because it is not possible to analyze all of the missions introduced in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 is limited to the analysis of carefully selected missions that represent typical case studies. It gives the rationale for selecting these case missions and the guidelines for studying them. To keep Chapter 3 at a reasonable length, it contains only a short description of the missions selected and of the story behind each cooperative effort.

Chapter 3 goes from analysis of the missions to the lessons learned (or findings) per discipline, and Chapter 4 identifies the key factors common to all of these findings, whatever the discipline. Restructuring the findings of Chapter 3 according to these key factors leads to the recommendations in Chapter 4.