The spatial domain has experienced significant transformations over time, both politically and economically. In parallel to terrestrial globalization, the advent of space programs in emerging nations implies a departure from global powers' traditional complete dominance. This shift is not only limited to state endeavors but also includes a rising number of private entities, which are particularly present in Western countries. This evolution raises several pertinent questions: Who exactly were the key players in the first new era of space exploration? To what extent do ‘the rise of the rest’ and the involvement of private enterprises represent a pivotal shift in the dynamics of Outer Space?
By PABLO VILLAR BOLAÑOS
From Rivalry to Cooperation: The Evolution of US-Soviet Space Relations from Sputnik to the International Space Station
Since the launch of the first Sputnik I satellite in 1957 until the end of the Cold War, Outer Space experienced dynamics parallel to those on Earth. The US and the USSR competed for space supremacy in search of prestige and military technology dominance, leading to what is known as the ‘space race’. Although the USSR took the lead with achievements as significant as the launch of the first satellite, the first animal, the first human, the first spacecraft to land on the surface of the moon, and the first spacecraft to land on Venus and Mars, the sudden death of Sergei Krolyov, Soviet ‘chief engineer’, dashed Russian ambitions to land a human being on the surface of the moon before the Americans [1]. This resulted in Neil Armstrong's moonwalk on 20 July 1969 becoming a day that was destined to be remembered for generations.
With the coming to power of Brezhnev, a climate of détente took hold of Russian-American relations on Earth, and this was echoed in space. In that context, both space agencies made a rapprochement to promote some kind of joint mission. On the one hand, the Soviet Union intended to demonstrate that its space capabilities were similar to those of the Americans, leaving behind the inferiority complex resulting from the defeat in the lunar competition. On the other hand, the Americans, specifically the then NASA Administrator Thomas Paine, fearful of a large budget cut by the Nixon Administration after stepping on the moon before the Soviets, considered this mission necessary to maintain at least part of the congressional budget support for NASA's manned program, which had even largely lost public interest [2]. It was also an opportunity to get a closer look at the Soyuz and other elements of the opaque Soviet space program. The result of the dialogue was the Apollo-Soyuz Project, which would exchange crews and send a message of a new beginning to Earth, ending the space race and laying the groundwork for future collaborations [3]. It was in the 1980s that, in the wake of the Strategic Defense Initiative-a proposed defense system to protect the US from ballistic strategic nuclear weapons- competition returned. Curiously, in 1985 the CIA estimated in a now declassified report that the USSR, which at the time had a more advanced space station (Mir) than the US (Skylab), would be able to land a human being on Mars in the early 1990s [4].
Events on Earth accelerated and the USSR dissolved, which was echoed in Outer Space in the form of historic and symbolic collaboration on the International Space Station. Coinciding with the new Clinton Administration, NASA and the Russian space agency reached an agreement whereby they would create a joint space station, thus merging the US 'Freedom' station project with the successor to Mir on which the Russians were working, despite hardly having any budget after the collapse of the Soviet Union [5]. The International Space Station is, together with the very existence of the Outer Space Treaty, the greatest example of the dynamics of international cooperation in space. This can be seen as the peak of American state power, as the Pax Americana that ruled the global on the surface had its counterpart in a hegemonic US in Low Earth Orbit and beyond, most notably in the scientific exploration programs for Mars and the farthest reaches of the Solar System.
Changing Landscape in Space Exploration: Rising Powers and Shifting Dominance
We arrive at the present with the US in relative decline compared to others, a trend that is also evident in its space program. The US continues to lead with its ambitious civil military program. It oversees the Artemis Program, which aims to return to the moon by 2026, although insiders consider 2028-2029 to be more realistic. Additionally, the US conducts numerous scientific missions across the Solar System, exploring planets like Jupiter and Saturn. It also observes the cosmos with powerful telescopes such as the James Webb and develops vehicles designed to navigate the atmospheres of places like Titan [6].
However, as mentioned in previous publications, the biggest rising space nation is China, which has been working to bring back Martian rock samples before the Americans [7]. Russia has also been mentioned before, finding itself in clear decline, particularly in its civilian program, which is plagued by delays and failures unthinkable in the USSR era [8]. But there are more space powers. Europe (or more specifically the intergovernmental agency ESA) developed the Ariane rocket family (industry referent), the Copernicus Earth Observation Program, the Galileo Navigation System or the Rosetta Mission (the first mission to enter orbit around a comet) [9]. Japan's JAXA excels in robotics, successfully bringing back samples from an asteroid and currently planning on a sample retrieval mission from the Martian moon Phobos [10]. The most efficient space nation is, however, India. With a minuscule budget in comparison to the other big players, they have managed to become a space referent by successfully reaching Mars orbit at the first attempt, discovering water molecules in the lunar soil or becoming the fourth nation to successfully land on the moon [11].
Private Pioneers: The Rising Influence of Commercial Entities in Space Exploration
Space commercialization has the United States as its global epicenter [12]. While it is a fact that factors such as the robust industrial base, the talent coming from agencies such as NASA, and the governmental support for the aeronautical sector for more than half a century make the country an ideal place for this type of private activity, it is no less interesting or convenient to analyze it closely [13].
The US space industry, since its beginnings in the late 1950s, has been a sector where missions, contracts, and tasks were mostly fulfilled by the government agency NASA through contractors linked to the traditional aeronautical sector. Thus, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle was designed by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, one of the country's largest defense contractors, leaving no room for smaller companies. This began to change in the 1980s with the passage of the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, which authorized private enterprises to enter the aerospace business [14]. It should be noted that during the most intense decades of the Cold War, space launch capabilities were intimately perceived as complementary to nuclear capabilities [15]. That is why the United States (and of course the USSR) opted to restrict private commercial activity. This restriction extended to the maximum facilities, know-how, and use of space technologies considered restricted, such as satellites or systems of various kinds, in order to avoid possible leakage of critical intelligence to the opposing block.
The funding and missions granted by NASA to these companies through privatization programs are amply rewarded by the cost savings for the federal agency, and therefore, for American taxpayers. This aligns with the principles and objectives outlined in the US Space Strategy, integrating these efforts into the framework of the American security apparatus. In other words, they serve the national interests by acting as a catalyst for the advancement of cutting edge technologies. While commercialization has impacted all types of space activities to varying degrees, it is notable that 93% of government funding is allocated to the launch sector, with the remainder distributed among the biosphere industry, space manufacturing, and the interplanetary industry. Between 2000 and 2018, the US government invested 7.2 billion dollars in 67 private space companies [16]. Specifically, SpaceX has primarily functioned as a government contractor, securing 15.3 billion dollars in awarded contracts since 2003, according to US government records. This support, coupled with the innovation spurred by the competitive nature of private enterprise, has significantly reduced costs. Whereas the Space Shuttle required 65,400 dollars per kg to reach Low Earth orbit, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy has reduced the cost to only 1,500 dollars per kg for similar missions [17]. This shift, as author William Welser suggests, is facilitating the “democratization of space,” enabling emerging powers, multinational entities, universities, and startups to access space more readily [18]. In line with the US National Space Policy, the democratization of space serves the US national interest by diversifying the range of national entities capable of reaching orbit. This not only alleviates budgetary pressures on the federal agency but also expands its pool of potential clients.
Currently, we also see initiatives like the Commercial Lunar Payload Service, another effort by NASA to privatize its services. This initiative aims to encourage the private sector to develop various lunar missions, particularly descent modules, with NASA funding the placement of payloads in these modules [19]. Additionally, there is the Human Lander Initiative, a critical component of the lunar landing architecture, including the lander that will touch down on the Moon (a contract the SpaceX won with its Lunarship, a variant of the Starship) [20]. Furthermore, NASA plans to replace the International Space Station with a privately operated station, where it will be a customer rather than the operator. Moreover, the spacesuits astronauts will wear upon their return to the moon will also be designed and built by private companies.
Although private activity has succeeded in reducing launch costs (primarily through reusability, a concept that, despite being explored by NASA in past decades, was not implemented until recently), the reality is that private companies are an extension of US national power. This is evidenced by their contracts adhering to US foreign policy guidelines. Numerous instances illustrate this point, such as the utilization of Elon Musk´s Starlink mega constellation by Ukraine, or how the high-resolution satellite imagery provider, Planet Labs, restricts access to high-resolution images in Gaza [21]. Without NASA, and, by extension, the US government, companies like SpaceX would not exist, a fact Elon Musk has publicly recognized [22]. In fact, Musk´s projections shifted from promising a manned mission to Mars by 2022 in 2016, to his more recent statements in 2023, suggesting it would happen “in about 20 years” [23] [24]. Given this symbiotic public-private relationship, it is not surprising that the US Department of Defense has approached SpaceX to explore using the Starship for its purposes, considering the possibility of operating the massive rocket as a “government owned, government operated” asset for “sensitive and potentially dangerous missions.” [25]
Conclusion
In conclusion, the evolving domain of space exploration, characterized by the increasing involvement of emerging powers and private entities, signifies a shift towards a more inclusive and diversified arena. This shift, while presenting new challenges, offers unprecedented opportunities for cooperation, innovation, and the democratization of space. As we stand on the cusp of this new era, the contributions and interactions of these diverse actors will undoubtedly shape the future trajectory of human endeavors in outer space, heralding a period of exploration and discovery that promises to extend humanity's reach further into the cosmos.
References
The European Space Agency. 2007. “Sergei Korolev: Father of the Soviet Union’s Success in Space.” Esa.int. September 3, 2007. https://www.esa.int/About_Us/ESA_history/50_years_of_humans_in_space/Sergei_KorolevFather_of_the_Soviet_Union_s_success_in_space.
Sagdeev, Roald. “NASA - United States-Soviet Space Cooperation during the Cold War.” Nasa.gov, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html.
NASA. “The Apollo-Soyuz Mission.” NASA, 2011. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo-soyuz/astp_mission.html.
Greenwald, John. “Soviet Plans for a Manned Flight to Mars.” The Black Vault, 1985. https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/cia/EOM-2018-00486.pdf.
Goldin, Daniel S, and Yuri N Koptev. “NASA-RSA Agreement.” NASA, 1998. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_rsa.html.
Talbert, Tricia. “Dragonfly.” NASA, December 26, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/dragonfly.
Bennett, Jay. “U.S. And China Both Want to Launch a Mars Sample Return Mission before 2030.” Popular Mechanics, 2017. https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a14506608/united-states-china-racing- first-sample-from-mars/.
Vidal, Florian. “Russia ́s Space Policy. The Path of Decline?” French Institute of International Relations, 2021. https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/vidal_russia_space_policy_2021_.pdf.
European Space Agency. 2017. “Timeline.” ww.esa.int. 2017. https://www.esa.int/About_Us/ESOC/Timeline#:~:text=Exploring%20our%20Solar%20Systm%2C%20ESOC.
The Space Techie. 2022. “JAXA: Japan’s Space Endeavors!” The Space Techie. February 15, 2022. https://www.thespacetechie.com/jaxa-japans-space-endeavors/.
Pieters, C. M., J. N. Goswami, R. N. Clark, M. Annadurai, J. Boardman, B. Buratti, J.-P. Combe, et al. “Character and Spatial Distribution of OH/H2O on the Surface of the Moon Seen by M3 on Chandrayaan-1.” Science 326, no. 5952 (September 2009): 568–72. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178658.
Denis, Gil, Didier Alary, Xavier Pasco, Nathalie Pisot, Delphine Texier, and Sandrine Toulza. “From New Space to Big Space: How Commercial Space Dream Is Becoming a Reality.” Acta Astronautica 166 (January 1, 2020): 431–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.08.031.
Schutz, Torben. “Revolutionary by Design. The US National Security State and Commercialisation in the US Space Sector.” French Institute of International Relations, 2020.https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/schutz_revolutionary_by_design_us_s pace_2020_.pdf.
United States 98th Congress. Commercial Space Launch Act (1984). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg3055.pdf.
Paikovsky, Deganit. 2017. «What Is New Space? The Changing Ecosystem of Global Space Activity.» New Space 5 (2)84-88.
Space Angels. “US Government Support of the Entrepreneurial Space Age,” 2019.
Roberts, Thomas. “Space Launch to Low Earth Orbit: How Much Does It Cost?” Aerospace Security, 2020. https://aerospace.csis.org/data/space-launch-to-low-earth-orbit-how-much-does-it-cost/.
Welser IV, William. “The Democratization of Space.” Inside Sources, March 25, 2016. https://insidesources.com/the-democratization-of-space/.
Daines, Gary. “Commercial Lunar Payload Services.” NASA, March 14, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/content/commercial-lunar-payload-services.
Brown, Katherine. “NASA Picks SpaceX to Land the Next Americans on Moon.” NASA, April 16, 2021.
Tani, Max . 2023. “Satellite Companies Are Restricting Gaza Images | Semafor.” Www.semafor.com. November 6, 2023. https://www.semafor.com/article/11/05/2023/satellite-companies-are-restricting-gaza-images.
Konicki, John , and James Pethokoukis. 2022. “Do Americans Care about Space?” AmericanEnterprise Institute - AEI. 2022. https://www.aei.org/articles/do-americans-care-about-space/#:~:text=By%20 Musk%27s%20wn%20admission%2C%20SpaceX.
Woolf, Nicky. 2016. “SpaceX Founder Elon Musk Plans to Get Humans to Mars in SixYears.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/27/elon-musk-spacex-mars-colo
Musk, Elon . 2023. “Hopefully, Humanity Will Reach Mars in 20 Years.” 2023. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1622746027152273409?lang=es.
Tingley, Brett. 2024. “US Military Eyes SpaceX Starship for ‘Sensitive and Potentially Dangerous Missions’: Report.” Space.com. January 31, 2024. https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-pentagon-military-missions.
