Applying ISS Lessons Learned

1
Applying ISS Lessons Learned in Future Models
for International Cooperation in the
Exploration of Space
Graham Gibbs Counsellor Space Affairs Canadian
Space Agency NASA International Space Exploration
Workshop 16-18 November 2004 Washington DC
2
References
Views expressed herein are those of G. Gibbs and
do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of the CSA or the Government of Canada

• 1. "Structuring Future International Cooperation
  Learning From the ISS"
• L. Cline, P. Finarelli, G. Gibbs, I. Pryke.
• ISU Symposium June 2001

2. "A Framework for Multilateral Coordination and
Cooperation of Future Exploration of Space",
G. Gibbs April 2004 i/p to President's
Commission Implementation of United States
Space Exploration Policy and AIAA Workshop on
International Space Cooperation
3. "A New Paradigm for International Cooperation
in Space Exploration" P. Finarelli, I. Pryke
IAC October 2004 (results of the 7th AIAA
Workshop held May 2004)
3
Questions Asked and Answered

• What lessons can we learn from past cooperative
  programs
• that we can apply to future exploration
  cooperation?
• Is there an imperative for an international
  cooperative
• effort to have a government-to-government
  structure first
• in order to be effective?
• How essential is it for the partners to share an
  overall
• vision first before proceeding to define
  individual country
• contributions? Or, is there a successful
  scenario in which
• partners have their own visions for space
  exploration
• while still being able to cooperate with
  other space agencies
• in areas of mutual interest?
• What do partners expect to receive for
  contributions to a
• bilateral or multilateral exploration
  mission? What are
• partner views on contributions that include
  critical path
• items?
• Can a multilateral framework accommodate separate
• but related bilateral talks and/or
  agreements?

4
Contents

• Structure of the ISS Partnership
• Applicable ISS Lessons Learned
• Implementing the Lessons Learned
• A Management Framework to Consider

5
Structure of the ISS Partnership 1 of 3

• Specific Contributions
• some duplication

• Ongoing Operations
• shared

• Long Term Science

• A "Single" Destination in Space

6
Structure of the ISS Partnership 2 of 3
IGA Art. 1 ", under the lead role of the United
States for overall
management and coordination "

• Intergovernmental Agreement
• Legal Regime
• Top-Level Political Commitments
• Multilateral (15 nations)

IGA
NASA/CSA
NASA/GOJ
NASA/FSA
NASA/ESA

• Memoranda of Understanding
• Detailed Implementation
• Roles Responsibilities
• Obligations Rights

Implementing Arrangements
7
Structure of the ISS Partnership 3 of 3
Management Structure
Govt Level Triennial
Cooperation Review
Not officially recognized in IGA/MOUs used to
resolve major issues
Heads of Agencies
Multilateral Coordination Board
Agency Level
Various Boards, Panels, Working Groups
Various Boards, Panels, Working Groups
SSCB
8
ISS Lessons Learned Applicable to International
Exploration of Space1 1 of 4
How the ISS Partnership has evolved

• Friends and Allies only then Geo-Political
  changes led to
• Russia being invited in 1994.
• U.S. to build "a fully functional space station"
  partners
• contributions to "enhance capability" then
  reality set in.
• Today a "genuine partnership" with each partner
  dependent
• on the other i.e. on the critical path.

1. Paper "Structuring Future International
Cooperation Learning From the ISS"
9
ISS Lessons Learned Applicable to International
Exploration of Space 2 of 4
Partners Differing Interests and Rationale

• Each Partner had a differing interest and
  rationale for
• joining the ISS program some changed over
  time
• this has not been an impediment to the
  cooperation.

From Paper Ref 1 " It is absolutely necessary in
constructing any cooperative program to
recognize that each partner has national
priorities that must be accommodated. An
international partnership brings together
willing partners seeking political and economic
leverage on their investments".
10
ISS Lessons Learned Applicable to International
Exploration of Space 3 of 4
Accepting that Which Cannot be Changed

• Political leadership e.g. Kennedy/Apollo,
  Nixon/Shuttle,
• Reagan/Space Station, Bush/Exploration -
  EU/Exploration
• Partner's individual interests (previous chart)
• Changes in the Geo-Political landscape
• Constructive Ambiguity e.g. ISS "Peaceful
  Purposes"
• Cost and Schedule risk

11
ISS Lessons Learned Applicable to International
Exploration of Space 4 of 4
Learning From Experience

• Operations Cost Sharing also anticipate
  mission extension
• e.g. the MER missions
• Preference is for "no-exchange-of-funds" in
  cooperative projects
• Barters work
• ISS remains a U.S.-led program however Partners
  have made
• "Consensus Management" work
• Original ISS IGA did not envisage expansion of
  partnership
• re-negotiation of IGA/MOUs to bring Russia
  in took 4 years

12
Applying ISS Lessons to International
Exploration of Space

• We will not be able to identify every
  contingency in advance so
• structure for cooperation must allow for
  flexibility.
• High-level political leadership may be necessary
  to garner
• international support/participation e.g. the
  ISS GEO examples.
• Recognize the many similarities in partners
  plans/aspirations for
• exploration e.g. U.S. Vision and Europe's
  Aurora program.
• Exploration beyond Earth orbit is an
  intrinsically global enterprise.
• International partnerships provide tangible
  benefits
• e.g. broadening public political support,
  sharing cost risk,
• enrich scientific technical content.

13
Implementing Cooperation in Space Exploration
Some Overarching Considerations

• Exploration is a "journey" to be implemented as
  a series of
• missions - "stepping stones" in this it
  differs from the ISS.
• It is impossible to define/plan each mission in
  the overall journey.
• Nature of endeavour makes it impossible to agree
  on specific
• roles and responsibilities for each
  (prospective) partner.
• Broad international involvement is desirable.
• Exploration lends itself to an internationally
  coordinated series
• of missions with each contributing to an
  overarching framework.

14
Implementing Cooperation in Space Exploration
Three Strategic Considerations

• Implement as a "Virtual Program of Programs"
• Provide a (non-binding) International
  Coordination Mechanism
• Establish an overarching Legal Framework (bi- or
  multi-lateral)
• to facilitate agency-agency and
  industry-industry cooperation

15
Frameworks to Consider
16
A New Paradigm for International Cooperation A
"Virtual Program of Programs"1

• A Virtual Program comprises a coordinated set
  of individual
• activities, as opposed to a single
  overarching cooperative concept
• Each activity employs the most effective
  international
• arrangement determined by the specific
  partners involved
• All partners will not be involved in all
  activities - structure
• should allow partners to opt-in/opt-out at
  various stages
• A specific activity need not be international
  in terms of its
• participants to be an integral part of the
  Virtual Program

1. Paper "A New Paradigm for International
Cooperation in Space Exploration"
17
An International Space Exploration Council
Scope Moon, Mars Beyond - robotic and
human exploration. Task Forum for
communication, consultation coordination.
Purpose Promote sustainability and continuity
of the long-term global vision
through changes in national commitments
and possible transformational events.

• Functions
• Exchange info on visions and programs
• Promote vision convergence and updating
• Discuss virtual architecture for mutual
  benefit
• Minimize gaps and overlaps
• Enhance critical path redundancies
• Develop implementation support mechanisms
• Standardization, interoperability, compatibility
  
• (technical interfaces, data formats, etc.)
• Sharing and dissemination of information
• Enhance scientific and engineering community
  networks

18
Legal Matters Cannot Be Avoided
Some Options

• Agency-Agency MOUs for each mission/project
  but
• each will require government-level
  signatory/approval
• to be legally binding time resource
  consuming.

• A Multilateral IGA and Bilateral agency-level
  MOUs
• (the Space Station model) but
• impossible to define roles responsibilities
  up-front
• in a virtual program of programs.

• Bilateral Umbrella IGAs (there are precedents)
  providing
• the legal framework (only) and allowing for
  agency-level
• Implementing Arrangements for programmatic
  arrangements
• a possibility.

• A Multilateral Umbrella IGA (JSF model ?
  without financial
• commitments) allowing for agency-level IAs
  as above.

19
An Umbrella Intergovernmental Agreement
Why For most it is the government (not
agency) that has the authority
to provide legally binding commitments to, for
example, enforce ITARs or provide
a Cross Waiver of Liability.
Purpose To allow agencies to sign Implementing
Arrangements (programmatic
roles responsibilities) on a
mission-by-mission basis without involving the
government-level.

• Content Overall legal framework for
  Cooperation In Space
• Exploration with Articles
  including
• Financial Arrangements
• subject to availability of appropriated
  funds
• Customs, Entry and Temporary Residence
• Transfer of Goods and Technical Data
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Cross Waiver of Liability
• Implementing Arrangements

20
An Umbrella Intergovernmental Agreement
Perhaps the Most Important Article
Implementing Arrangements Preamble . plus The
Partners to this IGA shall ensure that their
respective Cooperating Agencies make all
reasonable efforts to comply with the
Understandings contained in the Implementing
Arrangements that will be signed between them
pursuant to this Agreement
21
One Possible Regime
Intergovernmental Agreement (Bi- or
Multi-lateral) Legal Framework "only" providing
for Agency IAsI
Intergovernmental Group on Space Exploration
Review only perhaps adopt Strategic Plans
International Space Exploration Coordinating
Council
Agency-Level
Implementing Arrangements
Agency and/or Private Sector
Bilateral or multilateral
IMEWG
ILEWG
Existing Agency-Level Coordination, Planning
Review Mechanisms
22
Questions Answered

• Can we apply lessons learned to future
  exploration cooperation?
• Ans Yes many.
• To be effective do we need a govt-to-govt
  structure first?
• Ans - Head of State leadership would be
  helpful e.g. ISS GEO.
• - Govt-level IGA to allow agency
  IAs might be essential.
• Is it essential to share a single overall
  vision?
• Ans Yes/No - most nations have same
  overall vision but differing
• expectations/interests/rationales
  can be accommodated.
• 4) What do partners expect to receive?
• Ans - Science, economic spin-offs,
  publicity/national branding,
• - Partners citizens/politicos
  respond more positively to
• critical-path contributions or
  involvement
• Can a multilateral framework accommodate bilat
  arrangements?
• Ans Yes a Govt-Level IGA to provide
  legal framework
• and which allows Agency-Level Implementing
  Arrangements