INTRODUCTION - Critical Issues Forum.doc

Document Sample
INTRODUCTION - Critical Issues Forum.doc Powered By Docstoc
					Student: Solomatin Alexey;
Teacher: Liubov Khlystova;
High school “Didakt”, Zarechniy, Penza Region;
6, Komsomolskaya Street, 442960, Zarechniy, Penza region, Russia;
Fax: (8412) 60 81 67;

                                                                                    Jump to:

                                                                   Space Programs
                                                             US-Soviet Competition
                                                          Books: conflicts in space
                                                          Treaties and Agreements
                                           Non-treaty approaches to space security

It would not be an overestimation to state that the role of space exploration in much major
technological advancement has been crucial. Space-based information systems, remote sensing of
the earth, telecommunications technology, space-based navigation such as GPS and GLONASS, the
monitoring of compliance with international treaties and others would not have been developed
without the existence of space. Some of the world's major developed countries have based their sky-
rocketing economies on such technological developments. Early-warning, intelligence,
meteorological and geodesic (mapping) systems were made possible by advances in satellite and
space exploration technologies. So far the space sphere is free from weaponry, as opposed to the
land, sea and air spheres, which have all served as theaters of war. It is indeed important to preserve
space from further militarization. The purpose of this paper to research deeper into people’s
interaction in space, try to understand the main goal of space programs of some countries. Indicate
the use, successes, failure of the programs. Investigate the roots of the Space Race, which was an
informal competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that lasted roughly from 1957
to 19 75. Another kind of space race may differ in nature from the original Soviet-American
competition, as it could occur between commercial space enterprises. Early efforts in what is
commonly referred to as space tourism, to run the first commercial trips into orbit.
This paper assesses trends and developments related to space security-relevant national and
international laws, international institutions, national space security policies, and military space
doctrines. Space security-relevant international law has become progressively more extensive and
now includes: the1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1968 Astronaut Rescue Agreement, the 1972
Liability Convention, the 1975 Registration Convention, and the 1979 Moon Agreement. These
treaties establish the fundamental right of access to space, as well as state responsibility to use space
for peaceful purposes. They also remove space from national appropriation and prohibit certain
military space activities, such as placing in outer space objects carrying nuclear weapons or any
other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, to describe position of some governments,
indicate existence and future defenses, which are related to space security.

II. Space programs
When NASA grounded future shuttle flights last week, a senior Russian space official even
proposed quickly building several Soyuz vehicles to evacuate the shuttle's crew of seven along with
the two-man crew of the international space station in case the Discovery couldn't return.

"If we work really hard, we can bring nine people down in January and February by three Soyuzes,"
said Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of the state-controlled RKK Energia rocket maker.

The proposal was a bit hyperbolic -- the astronauts don't have food and water to last that long -- but
it reflected the esteem Russian space officials have for their veteran spacecraft.

Russia's manned space program has had no fatalities since three cosmonauts died during re-entry in
1971, while 14 astronauts have been killed in space shuttle disasters during the past two decades.

The Soyuz and its unmanned cargo version, the Progress, date from the mid-1960s and can be used
only once, unlike the space shuttles. A Progress costs about $22 million and a Soyuz slightly more.
The newest shuttle, the Endeavour, cost $2 billion more than a decade ago. [21]

Compared with the roomy shuttle, the Soyuz is decidedly claustrophobic. Three cosmonauts have to
stay in their seats during the entire two-day trip to the international space station. A Progress can
carry only 2.75 tons of cargo, less than a fifth of what a U.S. shuttle can haul.

But Russian space officials and cosmonauts bristle at critics who point to their ship's age, saying the
latest version, the Soyuz TM, has modern engines and computers and is similar to the original
Soyuz only in general shape.

In the late 1980s, the Soviet space program built its own version of the shuttle, the Buran, which
made a successful maiden flight in 1988.

Soviet officials claimed at the time that the Buran was superior to its American rival because of its
ability to fly on autopilot and its bigger capacity, but the program was mothballed amid the chaos
and money shortages before the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991.
Several Buran shuttles are rusting in hangars and one sits forlornly in a junkyard adjacent to the
railroad tracks that carry Soyuz assemblies to the launching pad at the Baikonur cosmodrome in
Kazakhstan. Another Buran is on display in Moscow's Gorky Park.

In recent years, though, earnings from Russian oil sales have allowed an increase in the space
agency's budget and its leaders are pondering a Soyuz replacement called Clipper.

Nikolai Moiseyev, deputy head of the Russian space agency, said recently that the Clipper would be
reusable but wouldn't be modeled on the U.S. shuttle or the Buran.
"Many experts believe that combining crew and cargo deliveries in one ship is irrational from the
point of view of safety," Moiseyev said.

Despite recent funding increases, Russia's space budget of $638 million this year is dwarfed by
NASA's budget of $16.5 billion. Russian space officials are courting the European Space Agency,
offering to jointly develop the Clipper and share costs. [21]

During the 2 1/2-year break in the shuttle program after the 2003 Columbia disaster, Russian
spacecraft served as the sole link to the international space station.

Russia and other nations participating in the station project had been impatient to see the shuttle's
return to service because the U.S. craft are the only vehicles that can deliver new modules and other
bulky equipment needed to complete construction of the space outpost.

In case of a lengthy suspension of shuttle flights, Russian space officials warned they will charge
Americans for further Soyuz and Progress missions to the station. Previous flights didn't earn
Moscow any money because it needed to repay debts to NASA, but officials say flights starting in
2006 will be conducted on commercial basis.

                                       Apollo program

   The Apollo program was designed to land humans on the Moon and bring them safely back to
Earth. Six of the missions (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) did achieve this goal. Apollo 7 and
Apollo 9 were Earth orbiting missions and were designed to test the operating systems of the
Command and Lunar Modules including rendezvous radar and essential life support systems.
Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 tested various components while orbiting the Moon, and returned
photography of the lunar surface. Apollo 13 did not land on the Moon due to a malfunction, but also
returned photographs. The six missions that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data
and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples. Experiments included soil mechanics, meteoroids,
seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields, and solar wind experiments.

   Skylab was the first space station the United States launched into orbit. The 75 metric tonne
station was in Earth orbit from 1973 to 1979, and was visited by crews three times, in 1973 and
1974. It included a laboratory for studying the effects of microgravity, and a solar observatory. A
Space Shuttle was planned to dock with and elevate Skylab to a higher safe altitude, but Skylab
reentered the atmosphere and was destroyed in 1979, before the first shuttle could be launched.

                                           Shuttle era

  The space shuttle became the major focus of NASA in the late 1970s and the 1980s.
Planned to be a frequently launchable and mostly reusable vehicle, four space shuttles
were built by 1985. The first to launch, Columbia, did so on April 12, 1981.

   The shuttle was not all good news for NASA — flights were much more expensive than initially
projected, and even after the 1986 Challenger disaster highlighted the risks of space flight, the
public again lost interest as missions appeared to become mundane. Work began on Space Station
Freedom as a focus for the manned space program but within NASA there was argument that these
projects came at the expense of more inspiring unmanned missions such as the Voyager probes. The
Challenger disaster, aside from the late 1980s, marked a low point for NASA.

    Nonetheless, the shuttle has been used to launch milestone projects like the Hubble Space
Telescope (HST). The HST was created with a relatively small budget of $2 billion but has
continued operation since 1990 and has delighted both scientists and the public. Some of the images
it has returned have become near-legendary, such as the groundbreaking Hubble Deep Field images.
The HST is a joint project between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA, and its success
has paved the way for greater collaboration between the agencies.

   In 1995 Russian-American interaction would again be achieved as the Shuttle-Mir missions
began, and once more an American vehicle docked with a Russian craft (this time a full-fledged
space station). This cooperation continues to the present day, with Russia and America the two
biggest partners in the largest space station ever built – the International Space Station (ISS). The
strength of their cooperation on this project was even more evident when NASA began relying on
Russian launch vehicles to service the ISS following the 2003 Columbia disaster, which grounded
the shuttle fleet for well over two years.

   Costing over one hundred billion dollars, it has been difficult at times for NASA to justify the
ISS. The population at large have historically been hard to impress with details of scientific
experiments in space, preferring news of grand projects to exotic locations. Even now, the ISS
cannot accommodate as many scientists as planned.

   During much of the 1990s, NASA was faced with shrinking annual budgets due to Congressional
belt-tightening in Washington, DC. In response, NASA's ninth administrator, Daniel S. Goldin,
pioneered the "faster, better, cheaper" approach that enabled NASA to cut costs while still
delivering a wide variety of aerospace programs (Discovery Program). That method was criticized
and re-evaluated following the twin losses of Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander in 1999.
Yet, NASA's shuttle program had made 116 successful launches as of December 2006.

   The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003, which killed the crew of six Americans and one
Israeli, caused a 29-month hiatus in space shuttle flights and triggered a serious re-examination of
NASA's priorities. The U.S. government, various scientists, and the public all considered the future
of the space program. [31]


  China launched its space program on April 24, 1970. In the past 30 years, the country has
launched 73 of its own carrier rockets, of which 62 successfully. They put 48 Chinese and 27
foreign satellites into near-earth orbits. The Chinese launches included:

      2 unmanned Shenzhou (Magic Vessel) capsules;
      11 DFH (Dong Fang Hong, The East is Red) communications satellites;
      17 FSW (Fanhui Shi Weixing) Recoverable Test Satellites;
      2 Beidou (Star Dipper) navigation satellites;
      5 FY (Feng Yun, Wind and Cloud) weather satellites;
      2 DQ (Da Qi, Atmosphere) atmospheric research satellites;
      6 SJ (Shi Jian, Practice) research satellites;
      3 JSSW (Ji Shu Shiyan Weixing) Technical Test Satellites;
      2 ZY (Zi Yuan, Resource) remote sensing satellites.

  Most of the Chinese launches were for the military. Between 1973 and 1976 there were six
launches of JSSW experimental satellites onboard FB-1 (Feng Bao, Storm) from the Jiuquan
Satellite Launching Center in northern China (40.6° north latitude, 99.9° east longitude). Three of
them never made it into orbit due to malfunctions of the launch vehicles. The JSSW satellites were
apparently intended to fine-tune the systems and thrusters of future satellites. It is possible that
equipment for various types of surveillance (optical, radio and radio engineering) was also
perfected on these satellites. But this series of satellites was discontinued. The launch vehicles were
also shelved. The mysterious end to the JSSW and FB-1 programs coincided with the death of Mao

  The most obviously military was the FSW, a photo reconnaissance satellite. Officially, China
said that these were remote sensing satellites to photograph the Earth for civilian purposes. Of the
17 satellites in this series launched between 1974 and 1996, three generations clearly stand out.

   The first satellites to be launched, dubbed FSW-0, were obviously experimental and intended to
fine-tune onboard systems, special equipment and recovery systems for the photographs taken.
Four FSW-0 were launched between 1974 and 1978, the first of which did not make it into orbit
due to a malfunction of the launch vehicle. These satellites were launched on CZ-2 (Chang Zheng,
Long March) rockets from Jiuquan. The satellites consisted of an airtight instrumentation
compartment and a recoverable capsule that contained the photo equipment. The FSW-0 remained
in orbit for three days.

   The experimental phase in the development of the reconnaissance satellites was completed in
1978. All subsequent FSW were operative. Six operational first-generation FSW were put into orbit
between 1982 and 1987 using CZ-2C launch vehicles, all successfully. These satellites had an orbit
life of five days. The 1,800-kg satellites had a diameter of 2.1 meters and length of 3.14 meters.
The operating orbit as a rule had an inclination of 63° and altitude of 175х410 km, which is typical
for optical observation satellites.

  In the mid-1980s these satellites, dubbed FSW-1, were updated, which extended their flight time
to 7-8 days. There were few external changes, but the insides were reworked considerably,
including the complete replacement of the payload. The satellite gained 300 kg with an increase in
fuel reserves and backup batteries for the electrical systems. The FSW-1 satellites were taken into
orbit on the same CZ-2C rockets. Five FSW-1 were launched between 1987 and 1993, all

  A new modification was finally developed at the turn of the decade, the FSW-2, weighing 2,500
to 3,100 kg and with an orbit life of 15 days. Three FSW-2 were successfully put into orbit
between 1992 and 1996 by a more powerful version of the CZ-2C, the CZ-2D, which were again
launched from Jiuquan.

  The FSW satellites apparently allowed China to conduct photoreconnaissance from space for the
People’s Liberation Army (PLA), surveying the territory of neighboring countries, and determining
the coordinates of strategic facilities for targeting by nuclear missiles, as well as map the territory
of China and other countries. The photo equipment onboard the FSW satellites probably had a
resolution of several meters.

  The launches of the FSW satellites were rare compared to similar programs conducted by the
United States and the Soviet Union, which had at least one spy satellite in orbit almost constantly.
The FSW were launched about once a year, so their military usefulness was quite limited. Only the
last generation of these satellites had orbital maneuvering capabilities, allowing them to get better
pictures of the required regions.

   The FSW satellites were, however, quite reliable. Of the 17 satellites launched in the course of
21 years, 16 were successfully recovered. The only failure was in October 1993, when on its fifth
flight the FSW-1 satellite moved into a higher orbit due to incorrect attitude control when the
thruster was fired, and 18 months later made an uncontrolled descent into the atmosphere.

   These satellites allowed China to perfect recovery technology, which was then used for its
manned space program. The FSW also carried out a number of commercial programs in materials
technology and life sciences under contracts with France, Germany and Japan. After the flight of
the FSW-III in 1996, China announced that it was ending the program. Press reports of a possible
fifth-generation of FSW satellites have never been confirmed.

  A number of Chinese space systems, including those used by the PLA, were support systems,
primarily communications satellites. The first DFH-1 satellite was classified as such, although it
amounted to just a low-orbit radio transmitter, more along the lines of the first Soviet artificial
satellites. Only in 1984 did China put a full-fledged communications satellite, the DFH-2, into a
geostationary orbit. It had a launch mass of 900 kg, diameter of 2.1 meters and height of 3.1
meters. The payload consisted of four C band (6/4 GHz) transponders. In 1986 the country began
launching operational satellites classified as DFH-2A. The DFH-2/2A were put into orbit by the
CZ-3 three-stage launch vehicles with a cryogenic upper stage. The satellites were launched from
the Xichang space center in southeastern China (28.25° north latitude, 102.3° east longitude),
which was built especially to put satellites into geostationary orbits since the first Chinese launch
center at Jiuquan was too far from the Equator. Between 1984 and 1991 China attempted to launch
seven DFH-2/2A satellites, five of which reached their intended orbit.

  In 1994 China began launching the DFH-3 generation of satellites, which had a launch mass of
about 2,300 kg, dimensions of 2.2x2.2x1.7 meters, and solar array span of 18.1 meters in orbit.
These satellites had up to 24 transponders, what is more than contemporary Russian Express
communications satellites had, though half the number of the best western models. The military
purpose of the DFH-3 became obvious when “civil” satellites called ChinaSat began to be launched
in parallel. Nonetheless, some of the transponders of the DFH-3 were leased to non-military users.
Only two such satellites have been put into orbit so far, although the platform of the DFH-3 served
as the basis for new geostationary satellites such as the Zhongxing-22 retransmitter, Beidou
navigation satellite, and the future FY-4 weather satellites.

  China began launching the FY-1 weather satellites in 1988. The T’ai Yuan launch center in
eastern China (37.5° north latitude, 112.6° east longitude) was built to put these satellites into
solar-synchronous orbits. They were put into orbit by the CZ-4A and CZ-4B launch vehicles. The
PLA uses the satellites to provide meteorological support for its operations. The first two - FY-1A
and FY-1B - were launched in 1988 and 1990. They carried scanners with only three visible and
two infrared spectral channels. But the FY-1C launched in 1999 already had four visible and six
infrared channels, providing much more detailed meteorological data.

  In 1997 and 2000 China put two FY-2A and FY-2B geostationary meteorological satellites into
orbit. They provided global weather data. The satellites were built on the DFH-3 platform, and
carried three-channel scanners with two infrared and one visible channel.[12]

                       Russian current programs
                                                                ISS involvement

                                                  The Zarya module was the first module of the
                                                  ISS, launched in 1998

The Russian Space Agency is one of the partners in the International Space Station (ISS) program,
it contributed the core space modules Zarya and Zvezda, which were both launched by Proton
rockets and later were joined by NASA's Unity Module. Roskosmos is furthermore responsible for
expedition crew launches by Soyuz-TMA spacecrafts and resupplies the space station with Progress
space transporters. After the initial ISS contract with NASA expired, RKA and NASA, with the
approval of the US government, entered into a space contract running until 2011, according to
which Roskosmos will sell NASA spots on Soyuz spacecrafts for approximately $21 million per
person each way (thus $42 million to and back from the ISS per person) as well as provide Progress
transport flights ($50 million per progress as oultined in the ESAS study). RKA has announced that
according to this arrangement, manned Soyuz flights will be doubled to 4 per year and Progress
flights also doubled to 8 per year beginning in 2008.

RKA also provides space tourism for fare-paying passengers to ISS through the Space Adventures
company. Currently three space tourists have contracted with Roskosmos and have flown into
space, each for an announced fee of $20 million. Despite the price, the space tourism venture has
proven to be very popular and all tourism flights are fully booked until 2009.

Roskosmos has committed itself to further provide two additional modules to the ISS, both
scheduled to be launched by Proton rockets. The first one, the Multipurpose Laboratory Module is
currently scheduled for launch in 2007 or 2008, with one Russian Research Module following in

                                      Science programs

RKA operates a number of other programs for earth science, communication, and scientific
research. Future projects include the Soyuz successor, the shuttle Kliper, scientific robotic missions
to one of the Mars moons as well as an increase in Earth orbit research satellites.


Roskosmos is using a launch family of several rockets, the most famous of them is the R-7,
commonly known as the Soyuz rocket, capable of launching about 7.5 tons into low Earth orbit
(LEO). The Proton rocket (or UK-500) also developed in the 60s but still flying, has a lift capacity
of over 20 tons to LEO. Smaller rockets include Cosmos-3M, the German-Russian cooperation
Rockot and other launchers.

Currently rocket development encompasses both a new rocket system, Angara, as well as
enhancements of the Soyuz rocket, Soyuz-2 and Soyuz-3. One modification of the Soyuz, the
Soyuz-2a has already been successfully tested, enhancing the launch capacity to 8 tons to LEO,
with the Soyuz-2b to follow this year with a launch capacity from Baikonur of 8.5 tons.
RKA manages by far the most commercial launches per year, in 2005 it performed nearly 50 % of
all commercial satellite launches into space.


                          Winged Kliper mockup at the Le Bourget Air Show [34]

One of RKA's projects that has made a large impact on the media in 2005 is Kliper, a small lifting
body reusable spacecraft. While Roskosmos has reached out to ESA and JAXA as well as others to
share development costs of the project, it also has stated that it will go forward with the project even
without support of other space agencies. This statement was backed by the above-described
approval of its budget for 2006-2015 which includes the necessary funding of Kliper.

Information on Kliper's entry into service and development status vary. Some sources state 2010 as
the target year of first orbital test flight, others, 2012. In January, 2006, the final decision on Kliper
was anticipated to be made from among three proposals from several Russian contractors with a
decision to be announced in February. Later, the result of formal bidding on the project was
expected to be revealed in July. However, RKA reportedly issued a statement in late July that
bidding for the Kliper program had been cancelled due to the insufficiency of the bids tendered. It
was believed that there would a two-year period within which the future direction of the program
would be determined.

                        Russian spacecraft upgrade program

It has recently been reported that Kliper and Parom will be developed as part of Russian manned
and cargo spacecraft "overhaul". It also appears that the joint spacecraft development study with
ESA will be the enaugural stage of this overhaul program. According to the article, the spacecraft
upgrade program stages are:

       Stage one: Starting in 2007, upgrade of Soyuz space vehicles. As a rule, each
        Soyuz crew consists of two professional astronauts and one space tourist. The
        revamped Soyuz, due to lift off in 2011, will carry two professionals and two
        passengers. Most importantly, it will be able to dock with the International Space
        Station, fly around the Moon and return to Earth at speeds of about 25,000 miles
        per hour, the equivalent of its escape velocity. (Note the similarity to ESA
        requirements - this may effectively make CSTS development redundant)
      Stage Two: Development of the Parom (Ferry) reusable transport system, which
       will replace the Progress cargo craft. The Parom system will comprise a reusable
       orbiter and expendable 12-metric-ton freight containers. This is a remarkable
       achievement because Progress spacecraft can now deliver just 2.5 metric tons of
       dry and liquid cargo to the ISS.

      Stage Three: This stage will witness the launch of a Kliper-type reusable space
       shuttle featuring technologies that will be streamlined during the first and second
       stages. [34]

                              US space program
The USA has been one of the leaders in the Space Race. There accomplishments include:

                                 Space Shuttle Program

Current and past Space Shuttle's applications include:

1) Crew rotation and servicing of Mir and the ISS

2) Manned servicing missions, such as to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)

3) Manned experiments in LEO

   4) Carry to LEO:
-Large satellites — these have included the HST
-Components for the construction of the ISS
-Supplies in Spacehab modules or Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules

   5) Carry satellites with a booster, the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D) or the Inertial Upper
Stage (IUS), to the point where the booster sends the satellite to:

  a) A higher Earth orbit; these have included:
 -Chandra X-ray Observatory
 -Many TDRS satellites
 -Two DSCS-III (Defense Satellite Communications System) communications satellites in one
 -A Defense Support Program satellite

  b) An interplanetary orbit; these have included:
 -Magellan probe
 -Galileo spacecraft
 -Ulysses probe [37]
                                 Hubble Space Telescope

                                                            Named after the trailblazing astronomer
                                                            Edwin P. Hubble (1889-1953), the Hubble
                                                            Space Telescope (HST) is a large, space-
                                                            based observatory which has
                                                            revolutionized astronomy by providing
                                                            unprecedented deep and clear views of the
                                                            Universe, ranging from our own solar
                                                            system to extremely remote fledgling
                                                            galaxies forming not long after the Big
                                                            Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
Hubble to be Serviced Again Administrator Michael Griffin’s decision on October 31, 2006 to fly
servicing mission SM4 in mid- to late-2008 will bring unique capabilities to Hubble in the form of
two new science instruments, Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and Wide Field Camera 3. In addition,
new gyros and batteries will extend Hubble's life through 2013.
Launched in 1990 and greatly extended in its scientific powers through new instrumentation
installed during four servicing missions with the Space Shuttle, the Hubble, in its sixteen years of
operations, has validated Lyman Spitzer Jr.'s (1914-1997) original concept of a diversely
instrumented observatory orbiting far above the distorting effects of the Earth’s atmosphere and
returning data of unique scientific value.

Hubble's coverage of light of different colors (its "spectral range") extends from the ultraviolet,
through the visible (to which our eyes are

sensitive), and into the near-infrared. Hubble's primary mirror is 2.4 meters (94.5 inches) in
diameter. Hubble is not large by ground-based standards but it achieves heroically in space. Hubble
orbits Earth every 97 minutes, 575 kilometers (360 miles) above the Earth's surface.[10]

                Participation in the International Space Station

                                                          Russia's Mir Space Station has been in orbit
                                                          for over 10 years. The first element of the
                                                          station was launched on February 20, 1986
                                                          at an inclination of 51.6 degrees. The
                                                          current Mir Space Station is actually a
                                                          complex of different modules that have
                                                          been pieced together.

                                                         The Mir module, the first module of the
                                                         complex placed in orbit, is the main module
                                                         of the station. It provides docking ports for
                                                         the other modules to attach to. There are
                                                         five docking ports on the transfer
[61]                                                     compartment of the Mir module. One along
the long axis of the module, and 4 along the radius in 90 degree increments. There is another
docking port on the aft end of the Mir module. The various modules that are attached to the docking
ports can be moved around to different configurations. [16]
                                  Apollo Moon Program

Project Apollo was a series of human spaceflight missions undertaken by the United States of
America (NASA) using the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn launch vehicle, conducted during the
years 1961 – 1974. It was devoted to the goal (in U.S. President John F. Kennedy's famous words)
of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" within the decade of the
1960s. This goal was achieved with the Apollo 11 mission in July 1969.

The program continued into the early 1970s to carry out the initial hands-on scientific exploration
of the Moon, with a total of six successful landings. As of 2007, there has not been any further
human spaceflight beyond low earth orbit. The later Skylab program and the joint American-Soviet
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project used equipment originally produced for Apollo, and are often considered
to be part of the overall program.

Despite the many successes, there were two major failures, the first of which resulted in the deaths
of three astronauts, Virgil Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, in the Apollo 1 launchpad fire
(the mission designation was AS-204, which was renamed Apollo 1 in the astronauts' widows'
honor). The second was an explosion on Apollo 13, in whose aftermath the deaths of three more
astronauts were averted by the efforts of flight controllers, project engineers, and backup

The Apollo project was named after the Greek god of the sun.[38]

                            China current program

  Hampered as it was by limited financing for space programs, a big technological lag behind the
United States and the Soviet Union, and insufficient production potential, China in the 1970s and
1980s had comparatively modest successes in space, and its military applications in particular. The
country’s military and political leaders initially seem to have assigned little importance to military
space technology. China at the time was ruled by the doctrine of a “big army” that succeeded by
numbers, not quality.

  In the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, China’s leaders began to take the national space
program more seriously, but also began to view it more pragmatically. Efforts were only poured
into the development of areas that land-based systems could not replace. China did not try to catch
up to the United States or Soviet Union in areas such as manned space flight and planetary
research, which would have brought a great deal of international prestige but at a huge cost.
According to unofficial information, China’s space budget in the early 1990s was about $1 billion,
which amounted to less than a tenth of the budget of NASA. This amount of funding and the
country’s industrial capabilities allowed it to launch no more than three or four of its own satellites
per year.
  This is the average pace of rocket launches that China maintained from the late 1980s. Chinese
specialists said privately that this is how many satellites and launch vehicles the country’s
aerospace industry was capable of building.

  In 1990 China, having acquired a wide range of launch vehicles, began commercial launches of
foreign satellites. The number of launches of domestic satellites, meanwhile, decreased and the
overall number stayed at four or five per year, which again points to the country’s limited ability to
build launch vehicles. Since April 1990 Chinese launch vehicles have put 27 foreign satellites and
dummy satellites into orbit. Another three were lost between 1992 and 1996 as a result of launch
vehicle failures.

  The commercial programs allowed China to raise extra cash to develop its industrial capabilities,
but this revenue, averaging no more than $100 million per year, was much less than budget
funding. Commercial launches alone could not raise enough financing to rapidly develop the
aerospace industry.

  Around the turn of 1992-1993, the country’s political leadership seriously reviewed its attitude
towards the national space program. This decision was apparently influenced by the use of space
technology in the wars and conflicts of the early 1990s, especially during the war in the Persian
Gulf. Moreover, China at this time entered a period of rapid economic growth and began to see a
massive influx of foreign investment. The country’s military doctrine also changed, moving in
favor of high-tech weapons systems. China began to buy up the latest weapons from other
countries, especially Russia. The country also strived to get its hands on the latest technologies.
Where it was unable to develop them on its own, it found other means of obtaining them, such as
joint ventures, participation in international programs and, as a last resort, outright purchases. This
applied to the Chinese aerospace industry as well.

  Chinese politicians’ greater attention to space issues also brought an increase in budget funding.
By the end of the 1990s, the country’s space budget was already estimated at $6.5 billion. The
increase in funding and development of technology lead to a qualitative leap in China’s space
program. In 1999-2001 China began implementing a number of new space projects. Besides the
successful tests of the Shenzhou spacecraft for manned flight, there were major achievements in
both civilian and military space applications.

  The success of such serious programs as the piloted ship, geostationary navigation satellite, and
optical-electronic Earth observation satellite seem to have fueled the country’s ambitions in space.
The director of the China National Space Administration and the deputy head of the science,
technology and industry commission at the National Defense Ministry, Luan Enjie, talked about the
government’s space strategy for the 21st century at an exhibition in November 2000. This strategy

      create technological infrastructure with emphasis on innovation research to make
breakthroughs in key technologies;
      encourage and support aerospace companies with the aim of fostering commercial
success, establishing international standards and promoting space technologies and their
application in production;
      improve products and education media in order to boost confidence in the products of the
aerospace sector and expanding sales markets;
      speed up the formation of aerospace groups, recruit talented young people to form highly-
qualified teams of technical specialists, popularize space sciences in order to mobilize public
support for aerospace research;
      use approaches such as “setting out priorities,” “active support,” “adequate
development,” and “advanced research” to coordinate efforts in the area of space;
      promote “Project 211” with the aim of creating a single satellite platform, a new
generation of launch vehicles, and complete the formation of an integrated satellite system to
further the country’s economic interests;
      understand the importance of space sciences and research of deep space, and make
manned programs a priority.[12]

                              China great wall industries

The Chinese Space Program began with the launch of the satellite Mao1 on April 24, 1970. As the
small satellite circled the globe it kept playing the Chinese national anthem "The East is Red" until
the spacecraft's power supply quit in June of 1971. Learning lessons from both the Russians and the
Americans the Chinese have created a credible space enterprise.

The major Chinese launch vehicle is called the Long March in commemoration of Mao Tze Tung's
historic march in 1934 to escape the armies of Chaing Kai Shek. The first Chinese space launchers
was named the Chang Zheng (Long March) 2, and every follow-on vehicle retained this name. The
current Chinese launchers are the CZ-3 and the CZ-4. The original CZ vehicles used hypergolic
fuels, but the follow-on launchers upper stages used liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for
propellant. Until 1984 only the Americans and the Europeans had used cryogenic fuel for upper
stages; the Chinese have successfully used these upper stages in all of their launch vehicles since
that time.

The Chinese have three launch sites which they use depending upon the mission required for the
particular satellite. The major development launch site is located in the Gobi Desert at about 40°N
and 100°E near the town of Jiuquan. It was here that the first Chinese satellites were launched and
the first Chinese ICBMs were developed. Around 1980 a site was developed in southern China for
GEO launches. This area is in the mountains near the village of Xichang. With the advent of a
mature reconnaissance program came the need for a sun synchronous capable site. Launching to the
southwest, China could have dropped a number of first stages on some unfriendly neighbors such as
Vietnam and India. Rather than have a international incident develop after each launch, the Chinese
developed a new retrograde launch site at Taiyuan in September 1988.

The Chinese have parlayed their launch capability into a successful commercial enterprise by
lowering the prices substantially to cut into ESA and the American market. To accomplish this
commercial market, the Chinese have established the Great Wall Industry Corporation. Several
different countries have used the Chinese launchers successfully including the US (Hughes
Corporation), Australia (AUSSAT), and Hong Kong (Asiasat). During the first months of 1995 the
Chinese launch capabilities were hampered by two disasters which destroyed two Hughes
Corporation communications satellites. One of the failures at Xichang rained debris upon a village
and killed 6 Chinese civilians. To become competitive again the Chinese will have to obviously fix
their problem and establish better quality control standards. [41]

                      OTHER SPACE PROGRAMS
Besides the U.S., Russia, and ESA there are a number of other countries with space programs. In
addition to Canada, Japan, and China a few third world countries have advanced their status by
launching their own rockets and in some cases their own satellites. This section will discuss other
space programs to gain appreciation of the fact that space exploration is a world adventure for all
members of the human species. The major expensive space explorations of the future may very well
be truly the movement, not of specific countries, but humankind as a whole reaching beyond our
planet into space.

                         THE CANADIAN SPACE PROGRAM

The Canadian Space Program is extensive for a country with such a small population base. The
Canadian Space Agency was created in March 1989 to manage Canada's civil space program. The
Federal Government spends about $500 million annually and employs 3500 people permanently.

The International Space Station represents Canada's most significant expenditure in space. The
Mobile Service Facility uses the vast experience obtained from the space shuttle's remote
manipulator system (RMS) manufactured by the Canadian firm SPAR Aerospace Ltd. Canada has
also had a very successful remote sensing program with their Radarsat 1 program the world's first
operational civil radar satellite. A Radarsat 2 is in future plans. Canada has a special partnership
with ESA contributing about $6 million annually to ESA's general fund.

There have been several Canadian astronauts who have flown aboard the space shuttle. Marc
Garneau first flew aboard the shuttle in 1984 followed by Roberta Bondar in January 1992 and
Steve MacLean in October 1992. Four more astronauts have been selected for future flights. They
include an Air Force Pilot, Major Chris Hadfield; an Air Force Electrical Engineer, Captain Michael
McKay; computer engineer Julie Payette; and Dr. Dafydd Williams, MD. These Canadian
Astronauts will train with NASA as required for future missions.

Recently efforts have been made to build a Canadian Launch Facility on Hudson Bay near
Churchill, Manitoba. Sounding rockets, vertical launches, and suborbital payloads seem to be the
current planned missions for the new spaceport.

                                        Japan NASDA
The National Aeronautics and Space Development Agency (NASDA) is the Japanese Space
Agency. NASDA has been extremely busy the last few years with a number of successful space
programs. NASDA is hampered in its launching activities from its two major launch sites of
Kagoshima and Tanegashima because of the Japanese Fishing Industry. A compromise was worked
a number of years ago when NASDA agreed not to launch during the height of the fishing season.
This means that Japan only launches from its launch sites at the end of January, the entire month of
February and the first of March. Another launch window opens at the end of August, through the
month of September, and at the very beginning of October. The rest of the time the Japanese space
program plans very carefully how to use their time.

The latest Japanese triumph is the H2 space launcher. This cryogenic vehicle has successfully
launched several LEO payloads and will be able eventually to support manned space plane
operations and the international space station. The H2 has the capability of placing a 2 ton payload
into GEO, a 10 ton payload into LEO, and launching deep space probes as well. The liquid
hydrogen and liquid oxygen fueled space launcher has a number of different available options for
space flight. Using six boosters, the H2 will be able to place 15 tons into a 300 km orbit. Replacing
the two solid strap-ons with liquid strap-ons will raise this capacity to 24 tons. Four methane
engines could boost 27 tons into a similar orbit.

The Japanese are currently developing a space plane called Hope. Hope is to be unmanned and is to
provide servicing missions to the Japanese Experiment module aboard the International Space
Station. Using the H2 for a launcher the vehicle would take two days to automatically rendezvous
and dock with the space station. The 10 ton version of Hope would then dispatch one tone of cargo.
The vehicle would undock and return to Earth for more cargo. Hope has a maximum on-orbit time
of 100 hours and a cross range capability of 1500 km. Hope would also serve as a technology
demonstrator for future spacecraft. A 20 ton Hope is being designed concurrently with the 10 ton
version. NASDA hopes this will eventually lead to a manned version of the vehicle or even lead to
a single stage to orbit craft.

                                  Indian space program

India has a great need for the capabilities which space can give it. With almost 1 billion people
within its borders, India relies heavily on agriculture which means remote sensing and
meteorological data are a necessity. Combine these with a communications system for a country
with a vast north-to-south distance and you have the natural need for a vigorous space program.

India has wasted no time in trying to establish an independent space capability. This country was
formerly dependent on the US and the Soviet Union for their space vehicles and now India has
developed its own indigenous remote sensing satellite. As Landsat 4 and 5 get older and less
capable, the United States will have to rely upon India for the continuation of its remote sensing
data base. The Indian Space Program has signed a contract with the American remote sensing
company EOSAT to provide thermal mapping data in similar bands to Landsat. After the American
failure of Landsat 6 and the possible demise of Landsat 7, the Indian remote sensing satellites
remain the only way for the U.S. to collect data. Even though the French SPOT has four bands for
remote sensing, none of them are as extensive as the Indian satellite. The pupil has now surpassed
the teacher in the area of remote sensing as the U.S. will use the EOSAT station in Norman,
Oklahoma for collecting Indian remote sensing data.

The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) runs the program from Bangalore in the southern
part of the country. At Sriharikota the Indians have established a mature launch site which has
launched the SLV and ASLV rockets with orbital payloads. The Rohini 1 satellite was successfully
launched from Sriharikota on July 18, 1980. The Indian Space Program will continue with more
advanced payloads being launched aboard more sophisticated launch vehicles. [39]

                   Russian program for future

MOSCOW, April 7 (RIA Novosti) - Government spending on space programs will increase in the
next ten years, the country's top space official said Friday.

Space agency head Anatoly Perminov said the government would allocate 5 billion rubles ($180
million) more for its space program this year than last, and would boost funding further in the next

"Some 18.3 billion rubles [about $663 million] was allocated for the implementation of the old
federal space program last year, and this year we already have 23 billion [$832 million] under the
new program," he said.
Perminov also said that in the past few years all treasury money earmarked for space projects had
arrived without delay.

The agency said underfunding in 2001-2003 prevented completion of seven projects under the
previous federal space program, which ran through 2005. Actual allocations then fell 26% short of
the due sum, curtailing construction of the Express-M, Luch-M, Gonets-M, and Resurs-DK
satellites, a Soyuz-2 launch vehicle, and a Nadezhda booster.

But if steady funding is maintained, the agency said, the number of Russian spacecraft in orbit will
increase dramatically in the next decade.

The agency plans to launch 21 telecommunications satellites, a two-satellite multipurpose relay
system, 12 mobile communications satellites, five meteorological satellites, five environmental
monitoring satellites, and a number of observatories and spacecraft for astrophysical and biomedical
research, as well as for solar and lunar exploration.

Russia will also contribute two spacecraft to the global satellite-aided search-and-rescue system
Cospas-Sarsat and seven modules to the International Space Station, the agency said.[15]

                         USA program for future

                                                            Left to Right: Saturn V, which last carried
                                                            men to the Moon, the Space Shuttle and
                                                            the planned Ares I and Ares V launch


NASA's ongoing investigations include in-depth surveys of Mars and Saturn and studies of the
Earth and Sun. Other NASA spacecraft are presently en route to Mercury and Pluto. With missions
to Jupiter in planning stages, NASA's itinerary covers over half the solar system.

Scheduled to launch in 2007, Phoenix shall search for possible underground water courses in the
northern Martian pole. This lander revives much of its experiments and instrumentation from the
failed 1999 Mars Polar Lander, hence its name. An improved and larger rover, the Mars Science
Laboratory, is under construction and slated to launch in 2009. On the horizon of NASA's plans, a
number of possibilities are under consideration for the Mars 2011 mission.
The New Horizons mission to Pluto was launched in 2006 and will fly by Pluto in 2015. The probe
will receive a gravity assist from Jupiter in February 2007, and will examine some of Jupiter's inner
moons during the fly-by.

                             Vision for space exploration

On January 14, 2004, ten days after the landing of Spirit, President George W. Bush announced a
new plan for NASA's future, dubbed the Vision for Space Exploration. According to this plan,
humankind will return to the Moon by 2018, and set up outposts as a testbed and potential resource
for future missions. The space shuttle will be retired in 2010 and Orion will replace it by 2014,
capable of both docking with the ISS and leaving the Earth's orbit. The future of the ISS is
somewhat uncertain — construction will be completed, but beyond that is less clear. Although the
plan initially met with skepticism from Congress, in late 2004 Congress agreed to provide start-up
                            funds for the first year's worth of the new space vision.

                           Orion Contractor Selected Aug. 31, 2006, at NASA Headquarters


Hoping to spur innovation from the private sector, NASA established a series of Centennial
Challenges, technology prizes for non-government teams, in 2004. The Challenges include tasks
that will be useful for implementing the Vision for Space Exploration, such as building more
efficient astronaut gloves.

                                     Mission statement

From 2002, NASA’s mission statement, used in budget and planning documents, read: “To
understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the
next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.” In early February 2006, the statement was
altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted. Some outside
observers believe the change is related to criticism of government policy on global warming by
NASA scientists like James Hansen, but NASA officials have denied any such connection, pointing
to new priorities for space exploration. The chair and ranking member of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs wrote NASA Administrator Griffin on
July 31, 2006 expressing concerns about the change. NASA also canceled or delayed a number of
earth science missions in 2006.

                                           Moon base

On December 4, 2006, NASA announced they were planning to build a permanent moon base.
NASA Associate Administrator Scott Horowitz said the goal was to start building the moonbase by
2020, and by 2024, they expect to have continued presence at the base with crew rotations like the
International Space Station. Additionally, NASA plans to collaborate and partner with other nations
for this project.[31]

                 China’s space program for future

   China’s space program is now at a turning point. The resources invested in the past seven or
eight years are starting to yield qualitative changes, which are taking place more rapidly than most
experts had expected. The wide range of international cooperation in space has also had a major
impact on the rate of development of Chinese aeronautics and its technological sophistication.

   Even the directors of the Chinese space program themselves are sometimes unable to follow and
assess the rapidly changing situation. For example, on October 15, 2000, Zhou Zhicheng of CAST
told the Xinhua agency that the Chinese space industry is facing serious problems due to lack of
financing and poor technology. Chinese commercial satellites lag far behind foreign ones in
construction and characteristics. China needs to review the basic principles of developing and
managing programs, and expand exchanges of specialists with foreign companies, he said.

   At the same time the president of the same academy, Li Zuhong, said that most Chinese satellites
work well and China, which has focused on quality, will soon be ready to enter the international
market with fast and economically viable serial production of satellites. Lin Huabao, the chief
designer of Chinese satellites, agreed, saying that China would soon speed up development and
construction of large communications satellites that will meet international standards.

   At the rate of development seen in the past two to three years, China could justifiably earn the
status of a space superpower in five to seven years. One more fact is indicative.

    From January 21 to 26, 2001, the United States held training exercises dubbed Space Wargame
at the Schriever airbase in Colorado. This was the first such exercise at such a high level where
space was given such a central role. The exercise simulated a crisis situation between two space
powers in 2017 and methods for defusing it using space resources. Participants in the exercise
conceded that the two space powers the wargame had in mind were the United States and China. As
the American military sees it, it is China that will be able to compete on an almost equal footing
with the United States in space at the end of the second decade of this century.

   Meanwhile in China there is already talk of reusable space ships, interplanetary stations for
studying the Moon and Mars and a landing of Chinese astronauts on the Moon. These are of course
just projects and plans that are a long way from becoming reality. But just the fact that China is
interested in such programs says a great deal. And while China does not yet have the resources for
such projects, they will surely be found for military programs. Looking at the military conflicts of
the past decade, China’s leaders have become convinced of the importance of the space capabilities
of a country’s armed forces. Therefore it is clear that China will continue to actively develop its
space projects, especially in the military sphere.[12]

      1. The most accurate topographical map of the Earth. This data is
          used to develop safer navigation techniques and better
          communication systems.
      2. Ultraviolet protection suits for people with rare intolerance to UV
          light, known xeroderma pigmentosum.
      3. Heart pump based on technology of space shuttle's fuel
          pumps. It's two inches long, one inch in diameter, and weighs
          less than four ounces.
      4. Efficient autos and planes benefiting from NASA wind tunnel          View of Earth from Moon [6]
          and aerodynamic expertise.
      5. New metal alloys based on research for the space station
      6. Thermal protection blankets used in everything from fire fighters
          suits to survival gear for cold environments.
      7. Robots and robotic software with wide-ranging uses that
          include auto-assembly plants, hazardous material handling,
          monitoring in dangerous environments, distribution and
          packaging facilities, etc.
      8. Lightweight composite materials that benefit cars, airplanes,
          camping gear, etc.
      9. Perfect protein crystals grown in zero gravity; used for more
          pure pharmaceutical drugs, foods and an assortment of other
          crystalline-based products including insulin for diabetes
      10. Better understanding of the Earth and its environmental
          response to natural and human-induced variations such as air
                                                                             Sunrise viewed from Columbia
          quality, climate, land use, food production as well as monitoring      (STS-107 mission) [6]
          quality of our oceans and fresh water.
      11. Commercial space communication systems for personal
          phones, computers, video transmissions, global positioning
          satellite systems, etc.
      12. Improvements in energy use efficiency.
      13. More responsible use of air and water in private and
          commercial buildings.
      14. Automated maintenance functions for buildings and new lower-
          cost building construction techniques.
      15. Smoke detectors for homes and commercial buildings.
      16. Air purification systems used to by hospitals to provide pure
          oxygen for patients.
      17. High-bandwidth and optical communications systems.
      18. Technology for cordless tools such as drills, shrub trimmers and
          rechargeable flashlights.
      19. Growth of zeolite crystals that have the potential to reduce the
          cost of petroleum and to store new types of fuels like hydrogen,
          which is abundant and pollution-free. This technology could be
          used in hydrogen-powered cars.
      20. Fire-fighting systems that battle blazes with a fine mist, rather   View of Earth from Columbia
          than environmentally harmful chemicals.                                (STS-107 mission) [6]
      21. Sunglasses that block certain types of light - blue, violet, and
    ultraviolet - that could hurt the eyes. These sunglasses block
    the hazardous light, while allowing light that is good for vision to
    pass through the lens.
22. Solar power collection.
23. Air filtration systems that can kill all types of harmful bacteria -
    even anthrax -- and remove allergens from the air with better
    than 90 percent efficiency.
24. Ultralight solar concentrators that gather power from the Sun
    and efficiently convert it into electrical power. Applications for
    this technology on Earth are limitless.
25. Water purification methods using ions (an atom or group of
    atoms carrying a positive or negative electrical charge). Used
    in water filtering systems to remove lead, chlorine, bad taste
    and odor. Newer purification systems also remove                             Luner Rover [6]
    contaminants such as perchlorate and nitrate.
26. "Power Pads" to cushion a horse's hooves, protecting against
    injuries and helping ease discomfort associated with brittle
    hooves or arthritis.
27. Disposable diapers.
28. Devices for collection and real-time analysis of blood, and other
    bodily fluids, without the need for centrifugation. Huge potential
    for hospitals and for remote units to monitor individuals with
    health problems.
29. Lighter artificial limbs that are virtually indestructible; based on
    foam insulation used to protect the Shuttle's external fuel tank.
30. Computer-aided tomography (CATScan) and magnetic
    resonance imaging (MRI) for imaging the body and its organs.
31. Light-emitting diodes used in photodynamic therapy. These
    diodes are used in a form of chemotherapy that kills cancerous
32. Infrared sensors used in hand-held optical sensor
    thermometers. These devices can measure temperature in the Orbiter with Earth in background
    ear canal in two seconds or less.                                                   [6]
33. Devices used to diagnose and treat patients suffering head
    injury, stroke, chronic dizziness and disorders of the central
    nervous system.
34. Compact laboratory instruments for hospitals and doctor offices
    that analyze blood in 30 seconds what once took 20 minutes.
35. Land mine removal using flare device and leftover fuel donated
    from NASA.
36. Technology which allows vehicles to transmit a signal back to a
    home base. Used to track and reassign emergency and public
    works vehicles; also track vehicle operations such as taxis,
    armored cars and vehicles carrying hazardous cargo. Now
    used to recover stolen vehicles.
37. Cutters using small explosive charges used by emergency
    rescue personnel to quickly extract accident victims.
38. Image-processing technology used remove defects due to
    image jitter, image rotation and image zoom in video
    sequences. Used by law enforcement agencies to improve
    crime-solving videos; doctors in medical imaging; scientific
    applications and even home video cameras.                            International Space Station [6]
39. Gas leak-detection system used by Ford in natural gas-
    powered car.
40. Method of labeling products with invisible and virtually
    indestructible markings - used on electronic parts,
    pharmaceuticals and livestock -- in fact it could be used on just
    about anything.
41. Fire resistant foam used as thermal and acoustical insulation in
    aerospace, marine and industrial products. Also used as for
    fire barriers, packaging and other applications requiring either
    high-temperature or very low-temperature insulation. Used by
    Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Airbus for for major weight
    savings in aircraft.
42. Hand-held camera which firefighters use to pinpoint the
    hotspots of wildfires.
43. Safer soldering base for jewelers using torches in jewelry
    assembly. Based on heat-shield tiles of shuttle instead of
    hazardous asbestos bases previously used.
44. Quick-connect fasteners used by firefighters and nuclear
    power-plant repair technicians.
45. Game-controlling joystick for computers and entertainment
46. Spray lube used for rust prevention; loosening corroded nuts;       Mars with polar ice cap [6]
    cleaning and lubricating guns and fishing reels; and lubricating
    and reducing engine friction.
47. World-wide television broadcasts.
48. Home insulation system which provides significant savings in
    home heating and cooling costs - uses technology of aluminum
    heat shield developed for Apollo spacecraft.
49. Laser technology used in artery catheters to spot areas of
    blockage and fire short bursts of laser beams to vaporize them -
    a "cool" laser providing thousands of patients with an
    alternative to heart bypass surgery.
50. New charged coupled devices (CCDs) used in breast
    examinations (mammographies) which images breast tissue
    more clearly than conventional x-rays. Doctors then use a
    specially designed needle to extract a tiny sample (instead of a
    scalpel) saving time, money and pain.
51. "Smart" forceps made of composite material, with embedded          Manned Manuervering Unit [6]
    fiber optics. These obstetrical forceps allow doctors to measure
    the amount of pressure being applied to an infant's head during
52. Small pill-shaped transmitters Used to monitor intestinal
    activity; blood pressure and temperature of infants still inside
    the womb; body functions of athletes and high-stress
    professionals such as firefighters and soldiers.
53. Technology to quickly arrange and analyze human
    chromosomes and detect genetic abnormalities that could lead
    to disease in infants.
54. Image processing software used in dermatology analysis to
    "decode" the shadow patterns and provided accurate heights
    and depths.
55. Roofs based on moonsuits that look stiff, but are flexible and
    expand in heat and contract in cold. Used as covering of malls,
    stadiums and new airports like Denver International.
56. Padding in helmets, shin guards, chest protectors and aircraft
57. Golf balls with greater accuracy and distance.
58. Lightning protection systems for aircraft.
59. Windshear detection and warning system for aircraft.
60. Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TACS) now used
    by virtually all passenger aircraft.
61. Monitoring system which scans important documents at certain
    times and compares the differences between the images. The
    system detects changes in contrast, shape and other features.
    Used by museums and the National Archives to monitor historic
    documents and plan a way to stop any damage.
      62. Landsat imagery to discover unknown archeology sites; reveal
          ancient coastlines; manage the harvesting of fish in the world’s
          oceans; calculate how well crops are doing, etc.
      63. Robotic mother pigs which keep piglet formula (milk) cool until it
          is needed then heats and delivers the right amount at feeding
      64. Improved spray nozzles for crop dusters.
      65. New breathing system for firefighters made up of a face mask,
          frame and harness, warning device, and air bottle. Weighs
          one-third less than old gear.
      66. Virtual reality simulators for medical operations, flight training,
          truck driving, etc.                                                   Setting foot on the Moon [6]
      67. Hydroponics used by vegetable farmers to grow crops without
      68. Fluorometer instrument used to monitor plankton in the world's
          oceans. Instrument measures amount of glow given off by
          plankton and other marine life that consume sunlight in their
          photosynthesis process. Much of the world’s oxygen comes
          from plankton.
      69. Oil spill cleanup using beeswax microcapsules. The beeswax
          balls absorb oil and keep water out. Absorbed oil is digested by
          microorganism enzymes inside the ball. When the balls get full
          of digested oil, they explode and release environmentally safe
          enzymes, carbon dioxide and water.
      70. Software to match and track whales.
      71. DirectTV.
      72. Satellite radio.
      73. Fire-Resistant Aircraft Seats.
      74. "Cool suit" which helps to improve the quality of life of multiple
          sclerosis patients.
      75. Pacemaker that can be programmed from outside the body.
                                                                                  Walking on the Moon [6]
      76. Instruments to measure bone loss and bone density, without
          penetrating the skin.
      77. Implant for delivering insulin to diabetics that provides more
          precise control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from
          the burden of daily insulin injections.
      78. Device for growing ovarian tumors so that tumors can be
          studied outside the body, without harm to the patient. [6]

                   An Opposing View from Fox News Channel

Many of you are familiar with the highly-biased commentary of Fox News. In researching for this
article we found the following commentary on NASA's space program. At first, we were surprised
and outraged. But, considering the source, it no longer surprises us. Fox is known for its highly-
conservative, pro-religious, liberal-slamming, uneducated opinions.

"Many... make grandiose claims about the many benefits showered upon our nation
because we sent a few people to the moon, or into orbit. ... Many of these claims are
hyperbolic. Most of them are false. ... Unfortunately, proponents have to rely on such
overhyped claims because the actual benefits of our manned space program have been
relatively sparse. ... Certainly there is some spinoff technology benefit from the program--
it's impossible to engage in any high-tech endeavor without occasionally coming up with
serendipitous results. And of course, there's occasionally some cross fertilization with
military space activities (though from a taxpayer standpoint, disappointly little). ...
Proponents need to come up with real goals, and real reasons, that can resonate with the
American people--something difficult to do with the program as currently planned, in which
we spend billions for a Motel 6 in space that can support only half a dozen people, even if
current plans come to fruition." [8]

             Who will lead the world into space?
If the United States does not lead the world into space because of the great retreat from science and
exploration by our people and our leaders; then who will do it? A bigger question to pose at this
point in history is will the whole planet become as China was in the 13th century? Two countries
stand out in their urge to explore space. Both of these nations feel their destiny is with the stars. The
Russians and the Japanese are destined to lead the world into space.

The Russian Republic has gone through an unbelievably serious change of government and a way
of life in the past five years. Yet through the strife and hardship one factor has remained constant,
the Russian Space Program. The Mir has been operational since February 20, 1986 and has
constantly been occupied by Soviet/Russian Cosmonauts. Even though some of the results from this
occupation of space has been mocked by some Western Scientists as "not real science" the fact
remains that the Russians continued in space through conditions which would have caused many
countries to disregard such "fluff" as space exploration and accomplish bureaucratic activities. Now
the Russians have signed on as partners with the U.S. as the U.S. space program is starting to
unravel as drooling government officials hope to solve an entire country's budget mess by taking
away $14 billion per year.

What will happen if the U.S. opts out of the space station? The Russians will continue their
explorations with the Mir and may even put up a second Mir. They will ask the other partners to
join them such as the Japanese and possibly the French and German part of ESA. The U.S. will be
left to continue whatever world-shaking activities they are accomplishing at the time.

The Japanese have always felt that their destiny is with the stars. They have very methodically
approached their space program as they have the rest of high technology with great industry and the
use of other country's breakthroughs. Even though Japan is under extreme stress from their
economic problems they will emerge from this as a stronger country ready to continue with space
exploration. Their new launch vehicle is a prime example of Japanese high technology and efforts.
Their constant moving to improve old ideas such as the U.S. Liquid Air Cooled Engine (LACE)
from the early 1960s has demonstrated that they will lead the world into the next technology
revolution and into further space exploration. (John F. Graham’s opinion from his book: [39]

As for me, China’s potential is very big and this super power can lead the space because of their
quantity and people’s factor which is largest in the world. What about Russia? I agree with Mr.
Graham about changes in our life – government want to lead in all the world, in all branches:
economic, social, spiritual and certainly in space exploration. To this numbers I can carry USA.
This country gives much attention to space exploration and want to lead in this sphere. I think that
the outer space must be used in peaceful purposes, not for wars and I wish to all this countries to
explore the space more and more.

                  Background of the Space Race
After World War II, the rocket foreshadowed a new style of warfare in which nuclear bombs could
be delivered quickly across the world. War might begin--and end--suddenly, decisively, without
warning. As the Space Race began, the United States and the Soviet Union were building rockets to
use as long-range weapons. The United States initially favored bombers, but the Soviets preferred
missiles and thus took an early lead in rocket technology. A rocket able to carry a bomb across the
globe also could be used to loft machines and men into orbit. The United States and the Soviet
Union engaged in a long competition to develop rockets for both warfare and the exploration of
space.                                                                        On October 4, 1957,
taking the whole world by surprise, the Soviet Union launched its Sputnik satellite into the starry
heavens and the great Space Race was on. In the decades that followed, the post-Sputnik boom
pitted the U.S. and Soviet space programs against each other in a race for headlines, hasty glories,
and real prizes. It was a marathon plagued by misinformation, suspicion, and rumor .
The Space Race was an informal competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that
lasted roughly from 1957 to 1975. It involved the parallel efforts by each of those countries to
explore outer space with artificial satellites, to send humans into space, and to land people on the
Moon. Though its roots lie in early rocket technology and in the international tensions following
World War II, the Space Race effectively began after the Soviet launch of Sputnik 1 on 4 October
1957. The term originated as an analogy to the arms race. The Space Race became an important part
of the cultural, technological, and ideological rivalry between the USSR and the United States
during the Cold War. Space technology became a particularly important arena in this conflict, both
because of its potential military applications and due to the morale-boosting psychological benefits.
A space history sleuth has documented cooperative ties between NASA and the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) during the heated U.S.-Russian space race in the late 1950s through the 1960s.[20]
The CIA and the American Civilian Space Program, 1958-1968, Dwayne Day, an independent U.S.
policy expert, spells out the interactions between two different bureaucratic weapons in the
American arsenal during the space race with the Soviet Union. Day observes that NASA and the
CIA had a close relationship in the early formative years of the agency. After all, NASA played a
key role in advancing American propaganda. "As such it was simply another means of countering
the communist threat to American interests," he explains.[20] "In NASA's case, the agency was
usually moving as fast as it could to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon and did not have much
additional flexibility in its schedule. Better intelligence was not going to allow NASA to move any
faster," Day concludes.[20] With great fanfare, this 36-year Space Race officially ended in 1993,
and in its place the U.S.-Russian space alliance was born. But beneath all the official rhetoric of a
bold new era of space exploration, the "marriage made in the heavens" has been fraught with the
same pitfalls of misunderstanding, suspicion, and high-level chicanery that started with Sputnik--
souvenirs of the misperceptions and delusions of the Cold War that threaten to drag down the
alliance and the space programs of several other nations with it.[40]
During the early years of the Space Race, success was marked by headline-making "firsts": the first
satellite, first robotic spacecraft to the Moon, first man in space, first woman in space, first
spacewalk. To the dismay of the United States, each of these early feats was achieved by the Soviet
Union. These events triggered a drive to catch up with--and surpass--the Soviets.

      The Soviet Union stunned the world with the launch of Sputnik ("satellite") on October 4,
1957. A shiny basketball-size sphere containing radio transmitters, Sputnik announced the
beginning of the Space Age. Coming just weeks after the Soviets' successful test launch of the first
intercontinental ballistic missile, Sputnik signaled the U.S.S.R.'s capability in rocketry and their
potential to dominate space.                                           Only a month after its "October
surprise," the Soviet Union                                            launched another satellite.
Sputnik 2 was larger and                                               carried a dog called Laika.
Sputnik 2 demonstrated a                                               growing Soviet advantage in
launching heavy payloads and                                           hinted that the Soviets might
soon put a human in space.                                             From 1958 through 1961, six
more Earth-orbiting Sputniks                                       [62]

                  were successfully launched by the U.S.S.R., all much larger
                  than the first. These missions also improved reentry and
                  recovery techniques for a human flight.

                  On October 4, 1959, exactly two years after the first Sputnik
                  launch, the Soviet Union sent the first spacecraft around the
                  Moon. Luna 3 recorded images of the Moon's far side and
  [64]            broadcast them to Earth. A month earlier, after five unsuccessful             [63]
attempts, the Soviet Luna 2 spacecraft had hit the Moon.[17]

On April 12, 1961, Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin circled the Earth once in his Vostok spacecraft and
returned safely. Gagarin's flight took place a month before American astronaut Alan Shepard's
suborbital flight, and 10 months before astronaut John Glenn became the first American to orbit the
Earth. Once more, Gagarin's flight suggested that the U.S.S.R. was well ahead in the Space Race.
Although the Soviet Union was achieving newsworthy firsts in space, very little
was known in the West about its space program. Detailed information about
missions and the identity of program managers and engineers were closely
guarded state secrets. The notebooks of Konstantin Feoktistov, an engineer and
cosmonaut whose importance was hidden for decades, contain rare, behind-the-
scenes insights into the early Soviet space program during 1958-1959.

The Vostok and Voskhod missions of 1961-1965 continued the series of Soviet firsts in space. In
six missions from 1961 through 1963, a Vostok ("East") spacecraft carried a cosmonaut into Earth
orbit in successively longer flights.
The Vostok spacecraft then was modified to hold two or three cosmonauts and renamed Voskhod
("Sunrise"). Three cosmonauts orbited aboard Voskhod 1 for a day in October 1964, five months
before the first U.S. two-man Gemini mission. In March 1965, Voskhod 2 achieved another space
spectacular, the first spacewalk, when cosmonaut Aleksei Leonov ventured outside his orbiting
spacecraft. On March 18, 1965, Aleksei Leonov became the first person to venture outside an
orbiting spacecraft. He was secured only by an umbilical cord attached to the life-support systems
of Voskhod 2. Leonov spent 20 minutes outside in the vacuum of space.

Early U.S. manned spaceflights were spectacular successes:

May 1961--American astronaut Alan Shepard went briefly into space, but not into
orbit, on the Mercury 3 mission.
February 1962--John Glenn spent five hours in orbit on Mercury 6.
June 1965--Gemini IV astronaut Edward White made the first U.S. spacewalk.
Although it seemed that the U.S. still lagged behind the U.S.S.R. in space, in reality
the United States was following a methodical step-by-step program, in which each
mission built upon and extended the previous ones. The Mercury and Gemini missions
carefully prepared the way for the Apollo lunar missions.                              [66]
The one-man Mercury missions developed hardware for safe spaceflight and return to
Earth, and began to show how human beings would fare in space. From 1961 thro ugh
1963, the United States flew many test flights and six manned Mercury missions.
After Mercury NASA introduced Gemini, an enlarged, redesigned spacecraft for two astronauts.
Ten manned Gemini missions were flown from 1964 through 1966 to improve techniques of
spacecraft control, rendezvous and docking, and extravehicular activity (spacewalking). One
Gemini mission spent a record-breaking two weeks in space, time enough for a future crew to go to
the Moon, explore, and return.
Russia's cosmonauts and America's astronauts became the most visible symbols of the Space Race.
These young space pilots were celebrated as national heroes, and their flights were widely heralded
around the world.

When the Space Race began, there was no rocket powerful enough to send a man to the Moon and
back. Both the Americans and the Soviets had to develop a super-booster, or Moon rocket. The
United States succeeded with the mighty Saturn V. The Soviets' N-1 Moon rocket never made it
into space. Both the United States and the Soviet Union began their separate quests for a Moon
rocket by scaling up existing smaller rockets into gigantic multi-stage launch vehicles.
On July 21, 1969, as millions around the world watched on television, two Americans stepped onto
another world for the first time. The United States successfully landed men on the Moon and
returned them safely, fulfilling President Kennedy's vision and meeting the goal that inspired
manned spaceflight during the 1960s.

The lunar landing was celebrated as an epic technological achievement and a triumph of the human
spirit. In the span of a lifetime, humans made a giant leap from the Wright brothers' first powered
flight on Earth to the first steps on the Moon.
                               [67]                 [68]

                              NASA#: 69-HC-685     NASA#: 69-HC-682

The pace of the race to the Moon quickened in late 1968 as both the Soviets and the Americans
strove to land there first.
September Soviet Zond 5 unmanned test flight loops around Moon and returns to Earth.
 U.S. Apollo 7 manned test flight of command and service modules in Earth orbit.
Unmanned Zond 6 circumlunar flight.
 Soviet manned flight to Moon canceled after October Zond problems.
Apollo 8 crew orbits Moon and returns safely.
 Soviet attempt to launch N-1 Moonrocket fails.
 Apollo 9 test of lunar module in Earth orbit.
 Apollo 10 test flight of lunar module, descent from lunar orbit to low altitude above Moon.
 Second Soviet N-1 launch failure.
 Launch of Luna 15 lander for robotic collection and return of Moon rocks (crashed).
Apollo 11 crew succeeds in first landing on the Moon.
 The end of the Moon Race appeared imminent with the successful completion of the Apollo 8 and
Apollo 10 missions.

In a suspenseful first foray, the crew of Apollo 8 looped around the Moon in December 1968. They
were the first people to see "Earthrise." Five months later, the Apollo 10 crew went into lunar orbit
and tested the lunar module in a partial descent to the Moon.

These missions built confidence that the United States was ready to proceed with the lunar landing.
The big question was what the Soviets were planning to do.
When it became evident that the U.S.S.R. could not send a man to the Moon ahead of the
Americans, the Soviets attempted to obtain the first lunar rock and soil samples, sending a robot
instead of a cosmonaut.
Luna 15, an automated sample return craft, was launched to the Moon two days before Apollo 11. It
crash-landed there shortly after U.S. astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first stepped onto
the Moon. If the Luna 15 lander had not crashed, it would have returned to Earth with lunar soil just
hours ahead of the Apollo 11 crew.

When the race to the Moon ended, the Soviet and American manned spaceflight programs moved in
other directions. In the United States, many expected the Apollo missions to be the beginning of an
era in which humans would move out into space, to bases on the Moon and space stations in Earth
orbit, perhaps on to Mars. Others questioned whether costly manned spaceflight should continue,
now that the race was won.
For the Soviets, the competition with the United States did not end when they began to pursue
longer-term goals, such as establishing a permanent presence in space with a series of Earth-
orbiting space stations. They also sent automated probes to explore the surfaces of Venus and Mars.
After a series of failures, the 13th Discoverer/Corona mission was successful. A satellite was
launched and a return capsule was retrieved from orbit for the first time in August 1960. A week
later, Discoverer-14 carried a camera into orbit and returned a capsule containing the first U.S.
photographs of Soviet territory taken from space.

The Space Race grew out of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the
most powerful nations after World War II. For a half-century, the two superpowers competed for
primacy in a global struggle pitting a democratic society against totalitarian communism.
Space was a crucial arena for this rivalry. Before a watchful world, each side sought to demonstrate
its superiority through impressive feats in rocketry and spaceflight. At the end of the Cold War, the
United States and Russia agreed to build a space station and pursue other joint ventures in space.

                   Failures in Space Competition

The United States had been planning to launch its first scientific satellite in
late 1957. However, two launch attempts using the Navy's Vanguard rocket
ended in disaster.
Public response to the Vanguard failures prompted national soul-searching in                      the
United States. The media questioned why "Ivan" could accomplish things
that "Johnny" could not.

Spaceflight is risky. The exploration of space has not been accomplished
without loss of life.                                                             [69]

In January 1967, during training for the first Apollo mission, astronauts Virgil "Gus" Grissom,
Edward White, and Roger Chaffee died when a flash fire erupted in their spacecraft on the launch
pad. U.S. manned flights were halted for almost two years while the Apollo spacecraft was
In April 1967 the flight of Soyuz 1 ended in tragedy when the capsule's descent parachute failed to
open. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov died in the crash landing, and the next manned Soyuz flight
was delayed for 18 months.
Begun under Korolëv and tested under Mishin, the N-1 rocket suffered from critical technical
problems that doomed Soviet efforts to land a man on the Moon by 1970. All four unmanned flight
tests of the N-1 ended in failure. The N-1 effort was canceled in 1974, and the Soviet manned lunar
program passed into oblivion. [13]

The year 1999 was predicted to continue the explosive growth in commercial space transportation
ignited by the emergence of wireless satellite networks and the growing demand for communication
bandwidth. The world’s space launch providers conducted 74 commercial, military and scientific
launches during 1999. There were seven failures. Those failures would include the major U.S.
rocket families Delta and Titan.[22] On April 9, a Lockheed Martin Titan 4-B blasted off from Cape
Canaveral carrying a military missile warning satellite. The launch was a crucial return-to-flight for
the military’s biggest rocket, which had exploded in August 1998 on its last launch attempt. At first,
all seemed to go well with the rocket. But hours after liftoff, the Air Force reported that the satellite
was in the wrong orbit. Something had gone wrong with the rocket’s final stage. The mission was a
complete failure; the satellite a total loss.                                                   Disaster
struck again on April 27. This time a Lockheed-built Athena rocket sped aloft from the military
spaceport at Vandenberg, California.                                                          The
payload was a high-resolution commercial reconnaissance satellite for industry. But minutes into
the flight, the covering atop the satellite malfunctioned and failed to drop away. The added weight
sent the rocket and satellite crashing back to Earth.[35]

The Soviet program suffered various incidents and set-backs.

The Soviet space program was tied to the central planning of the USSR's five year plans. This made
it difficult for the Chief Designers to respond in 1961 to the US launching a crash program for a
manned lunar landing as the next five year plan would not start until 1964. Centralised planning and
the concentration on production targets also made it difficult for middle management and engineers
to highlight defects in equipment leading to poor quality control.

The Soviet space program produced the first cosmonaut fatality on March 23, 1961 when Valentin
Bondarenko died in a fire within a low pressure, high oxygen atmosphere.

The Voskhod program was cancelled after two manned flights due to the change of Soviet
leadership and the near fatality of the second mission. Had the planned further flights gone ahead
they could have given the Soviet space program further 'firsts' including a long duration flight of 20
days, a spacewalk by a woman and an untethered spacewalk.

The deaths of Korolyov (heart attack), Komarov (in the Soyuz 1 crash) and Gagarin (on routine
fighter jet mission) within two years of each other understandably made some negative impact on
the Soviet program.

The Soviets continued striving for the first lunar mission with the huge N-1 rocket which exploded
on each of four unmanned tests. The Americans won the race to land on the moon with Apollo 11 in
July, 1969.

On April 5, 1975, the second stage of a Soyuz rocket carrying 2 cosmonauts to the Salyut 4 space
station malfunctioned, resulting in the first manned launch abort. The cosmonauts were carried
several thousand miles downrange and became worried that they would land in China, which the
Soviet Union was then having difficult relations with. The capsule hit a mountain, sliding down a
slope and almost slid off a cliff; fortunately the parachute lines snagged on trees and kept this from
happening. As it was, the two suffered severe injuries and the commander, Lazerev, never flew

On March 18, 1980 a Vostok rocket exploded on its launch pad during a fueling operation killing 48

In September 1983, a Soyuz rocket being launched to carry cosmonauts to the Salyut 7 space station
exploded on the pad, causing the Soyuz capsule's abort system to engage, saving the two
cosmonauts on board.

The Soviet space program produced the Space Shuttle Buran based on the Energia launcher.
Energia would be used as the base for a manned Mars mission. Buran was intended to operate in
support of large space based military platforms as a response first to the US Space Shuttle and then
the Strategic Defense Initiative. By the time the system was operational, in 1988, strategic arms
reduction treaties and the end of the Cold War made Buran redundant. Several vehicles were built,
but only one flew an unmanned test flight; it was found too expensive to operate as a civilian

The history of space exploration has been marred by a number of tragedies that resulted in the
deaths of the astronauts or ground crew. As of 2007, in-flight accidents had killed 18 astronauts,
training accidents had claimed 11 astronauts, and launchpad accidents had killed at least 70 ground

About two percent of the manned launch/reentry attempts have killed their crew, with Soyuz and
the Shuttle having almost the same death rates. Except for the X-15 (which is a suborbital rocket
plane), other launchers have not launched sufficiently often for reasonable safety comparisons to be
made. For example, it seems likely that Apollo would have eventually had a similar fatality rate if
the program had continued to the present day.

About five percent of the people that have been launched have died doing so (because astronauts
often launch more than once). As of November 2004, 439 individuals have flown on spaceflights:
Russia/Soviet Union (96), USA (277), others (66). Twenty-two have died while in a spacecraft:
three on Apollo 1, one on Soyuz 1, one on X-15-3, three on Soyuz 11, seven on Challenger, and
seven on Columbia. By space program, 18 NASA astronauts (4.1%) and four Russian cosmonauts
(0.9% of all the people launched) died while in a spacecraft.[36]

If Apollo 1 and X-15-3 are included as spaceflights, five percent or 22 of 439 have died on
spaceflights. This includes Roger Chaffee (who never flew in space) and Michael J. Adams (who
reached space by the U.S. definition but not the international definition, see below) in the
spaceflight total and Grissom, White, Chaffee (the crew of Apollo 1) and Adams in the killed total.

If Apollo 1 and the X-15-3 are excluded; four percent or 18 of 437 have died while on a spaceflight.
This excludes Gus Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee, and Michael J. Adams from the killed total
and Chaffee and Adams from the spaceflight total.

The Soyuz system is often considered to be more reliable than the Shuttle, because 14 have been
killed in shuttle accidents (versus four killed in Soyuz accidents, however, there have only been two
shuttle flight fatalities, and the number is higher because of the shuttle's greater people capacity).
However, the overall safety appears to be similar. No deaths have occurred on Soyuzs since 1971,
and none with the current design of the Soyuz. Including the early Soyuz design, the average deaths
per launched crew member on Soyuz are currently under two percent. However, there have also
been several serious injuries, and some other incidents in which crews nearly died.[36]

NASA astronauts who have lost their lives in the line of duty are memorialized at the Astronaut
Memorial at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Merritt Island, Florida. Cosmonauts
who have died in the line of duty under the auspices of the Soviet Union were generally honored by
burial at the Kremlin Wall Necropolis in Moscow. It is unknown whether this remains tradition for
Russia, since the Kremlin Wall Necropolis was largely a Communist honor and no cosmonauts
have died in action since the Soviet Union fell.
                                 Other countries
While the U.S. and U.S.S.R./Russia have made the largest contributions to the space
surveillance capabilities to date, other actors are increasing their capabilities. China has a
tracking, telemetry and communications system, including large phased array radars, to monitor
its national satellites and spacecraft, although it is not yet able to track uncooperative space
objects.113 Japan has built two new facilities – an optical site and large phased array radar – for
space surveillance, primarily for asteroid detection as well as monitoring of debris and
Canada has experimented with a satellite tracking system, and is currently engaged in
research and development of space-based surveillance technology, including a micro-satellite based
option. Debris monitoring is a mission of the European Space Agency, which operates an
optical facility in the Canary Islands and accesses the powerful FGAN Tracking and Imaging
Radar in Darmstadt, Germany.116 France is pursuing debris monitoring in GEO through two new
projects, incorporating advanced optical telescope technology.117 The U.S. ballistic missile
defence system has also supported new space surveillance initiatives, including upgrades to aging
early warning facilities and space-based surveillance projects. [63]
China has been developing space technology purely for peaceful purposes and will never participate
in any arms race in outer space, FM spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said on Thursday. [42]

             International cooperation in space
The number of countries involved in space exploration has grown from a small, select group
beginning in the 1950s to more than 80 nations that today have organized efforts to use space
exploration to benefit their societies.
  During a brief thaw in the Cold War, three U.S. astronauts and two Soviet cosmonauts shook
hands in low earth orbit. The Apollo Soyuz test project marked the first time citizens of two
countries met in space. It seems kind of quaint in retrospect, given the massive multinational space
station project that is currently underway joining the U.S., Russia and 14 other nations on the high

                                        the surviving members of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project
                                        gather at the National Air and Space Museum in
                                        Washington July 14th to mark the 30th anniversary of the
                                        mission. (credit: J. Foust)

 [49]                                   [49]
The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) was the first human spaceflight mission managed jointly by
two nations. It was designed to test the compatibility of rendezvous and docking systems for
American and Soviet spacecraft in order to open the way for future joint human flights. There were
a number of difficulties that both nations had to resolve in the mission design before they could
assure a safe docking of both spacecraft and an on-orbit meeting of crewmembers. The technical
challenges included different measuring systems, the different spacecraft and thus mating adapter
designs, and different air pressures and mixtures. The mission began with the Soyuz launch on July
15, 1975, followed by the Apollo launch seven hours later. The docking in space of, the two
spacecraft took place at 2:17 p.m. U.S. central time on July 17. Two days worth of joint operations
followed. After separation, the Soyuz remained in space for almost two days before landing in the
U.S.S.R. on July 21. The Apollo spacecraft remained in space for another three days before
splashing down near Hawaii on July 24.[1] The mission was a resounding success for both
Americans and Soviets. They achieved their goal of obtaining flight experience for rendezvous and
docking of human spacecraft. In addition, they also demonstrated in-flight intervehicular crew
transfer, as well as accomplished a series of scientific experiments. The ASTP mission was not only
successful as a space effort, but the mutual confidence and trust it engendered made it a huge step in
international cooperation during the Cold War.

A good example of early space cooperation is the study of Halley’s comet during its approach to the
sun in 1986. Five years earlier, in 1981, the space agencies of the Soviet Union, Japan, Europe, and
the United States formed the Inter-Agency Consultative Group (IACG) to informally coordinate
matters related to the space missions being planned to observe the comet. In 1986, five spacecraft
from these nations rendezvoused with Halley’s comet. The vital information exchanged as a result
of IACG collaboration was invaluable in studying the comet.

In human spaceflight, international collaboration has grown from the seeds of early programs such
as Skylab, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, and the Space Shuttle-Mir Joint Program, to the current
International Space Station effort, one of the most incredible engineering accomplishments in
history The end of the cold war and the subsequent changes in the international security
environment have raised new possibilities for the utilization of space technology to promote
international peace, security and stability. In this new political environment, the United Nations
Organization has taken on new functions, including preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and
expanded peace-keeping operations, in addition to its continuing role in promoting economic and
social development. Moreover, as indicated by the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, held in 1992, the United Nations started to play a more active role in ensuring the
environmental security of all countries. [16]            After decades of competition between the
United States and the Soviet Union, the new Russian Federation and the United States agreed in
1994 to cooperate in the development and use of a large international space station. The partnership
also includes Japan, Canada, and the European Space Agency. Under construction in the late 1990s
for use in the 21st century, the new space station focuses the expertise and resources of all partners
to achieve a permanent human presence in space. [18]

In 1993 and 1994 the heads of NASA and the Russian Space Agency, with
government approval, signed historic agreements on cooperative ventures in
space. The two agencies agreed to form a partnership to develop an
international space station and, in preparation for that project, to engage in a
series of joint missions aboard the U.S. Space Shuttle and the Russian Mir
space station.                                                                     [70]
The first docking mission of the Space Shuttle and Mir occurred in 1995. Unlike the one-time joint
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project mission of 1975, the Shuttle-Mir mission signaled an era of continuing
cooperation between Americans and Russians in space.


                        INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

The International Space Station is scheduled to be completed early in the 21st century. It is the
product of a partnership of 13 nations, led by the United States, with major elements developed by
                          European members, Canada, Japan, and Russia. This space station is
                          designed to provide more laboratory space, more electrical power, larger
                          crew accommodations, and greater international cooperation than any
                          previous space station.

                         Construction in orbit is carried out during a series of Space Shuttle
                         missions. When the space station is occupied by up to six people, both the
                         Shuttle and the Soyuz spacecraft can be used as ferries for crews and

                        INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
United States laboratory module                            European Space Agency module
Japanese experimental module                               Russian service module
Russian energy block                                       Science power platform
Canadian Space Agency robot arm                            Soyuz crew transfer vehicles
Solar arrays                                                Truss
Radiator Space                                              Shuttle

          Photo:                                                               artist
          concept of

          International Space Station in orbit

The International Space Station is the largest international science collaboration in space today. The
United States, Japan, Canada, Russia, and 11 countries represented by the European Space Agency
have come together to build and inhabit the station. Through the science performed there, these
nations seek to improve life on Earth and pave the way for future space exploration. The space
station partnership has illustrated its strength and commitment with its perseverance through various
strains, including aftershocks from the loss of the U.S. space shuttle Columbia in 2003. Such
cooperative endeavors serve as inspiration for the future. When great nations seek great endeavors,
they find more success with allies and partners. Space exploration is the great endeavor of our time.
The future of space exploration will be grounded in such international involvement and, more
importantly, in collaboration among nations to benefit people everywhere. World citizens have
reaped enormous benefits from space exploration through satellites that support communication,
navigation, weather observation, and other remote-sensing disciplines. Space-related technologies
and scientific knowledge have contributed to high-performance computing and robotics, scratch-
resistant eyeglass lenses, breast cancer imaging, and much more. For the near future, even more
ambitious space exploration plans are in development. With completion of the New Horizons
mission, the first spacecraft to visit the dwarf planet Pluto and its moon Charon in 2016-2017, the
world’s spacefaring nations will have sent robotic spacecraft to all the planets of our solar system.
No later than 2020, we expect humans to once again walk on the moon. [44]

As the magnitude of space exploration increases, so does international, collaborative effort.
          IV.         Books: conflicts in space
Title of the book              Author          Plot
The Rebirth of the Russian     Harvey, Brian   ‘Russia in Space -The New
Space Program                                  Frontier’ looks at the
50 Years After Sputnik, New                    Russian space programme
Frontiers                                      in 2007, 50 years after
                                               Sputnik. Brian Harvey
                                               covers all the key elements
                                               of the current Russian space
                                               programme, from manned to
                                               unmanned missions; the
                                               various types of unmanned
                                               applications programmes;
                                               the military programme; the
                                               infrastructure of production,
                                               launch centres and tracking;
                                               the commercialization of the
                                               programme and its
                                               relationship with western
                                               companies; and the
                                               programme in a comparative
                                               global context. Strong
                                               emphasis is placed on
                                               Russia’s future space
                                               intentions and on new
                                               programmes and missions in
                                               prospect, such as Soyuz in
                                               Kourou, Kliper, Phobos
                                               Grunt and the Angara
                                               launcher. End matter
                                               contains a list of all missions
                                               since January 1991 to
                                               December 2006.
Moon shot : the inside story   Alan Shepard    Shepard and the late
of America's race to the                       Slayton, two of the original
moon                                           Mercury astronauts, here
                                               team up with two veteran
                                               space reporters to produce a
                                                firsthand account of the
                                                space program's early days.
                                                The narrative is at its best
                                                when it focuses on the
                                                astronauts' flight
                                                experiences-Shepard's brief
                                                Mercury flight, his lunar
                                                landing mission ten years
                                                later, and Slayton's long-
                                                delayed trip into space
                                                aboard the last Apollo
                                                mission in 1975. On the
                                                down side, its use of re-
                                                created conversations that
                                                pass as exposition weaken
                                                the narrative, making it
                                                sound more like a
                                                screenplay prospectus than
                                                a space history. For
                                                example, it is doubtful that
                                                John Glenn had to explain to
                                                his fellow astronauts what
                                                the Saturn launch vehicle
                                                was. One comes away
                                                wishing for more insight into
                                                what it was like to walk on
                                                the moon and less about the
                                                astronauts' pranks and
                                                peccadillos. Still, with the
                                                book's publication timed to
                                                coincide with this July's 25th
                                                anniversary of the first
                                                manned lunar landing, this
                                                title may see some demand.
First on the moon A voyage     Neil Armstrong   Written with Gene Farmer
with Neil Armstrong, Michael                    and Dora Jane Hamblin.
Collins and Edwin E. Aldrin,                    Epilogue by Arthur C.
Jr                                              Clarke. 511 pages, plates,
                                                cloth, dj, book club edition,
                                                very good. From the dj: 'The
                                                exclusive story of Apollo 11
                                                and the always thrilling and
                                                historic personal
                                                experiences of the three
                                                astronauts who put man on
                                                the moon. It is a voyage in
                                                every sense of the world -
                                                through time, from President
                                                Kennedy's fateful
                                                pronouncement on May 25,
                                                1961, that the United States
                                                would put man on the moon
                                                 before the decade was out,
                                                 and through space, with
                                                 Mercury, Gemini, and
                                                 Apollo. ~ Life senior editor
                                                 Gene Farmer and Life staff
                                                 writer Dora Jane Hamblin
                                                 have spent many months
                                                 with - indeed, living with - the
                                                 astronauts and their families.
                                                 Not only is the flight
                                                 excitingly and thoroughly
                                                 documented, with the
                                                 astronauts' own thoughts
                                                 and words woven through
                                                 the recorded transcript with
                                                 Houston, but the
                                                 atmosphere in the
                                                 astronauts' homes during the
                                                 flight is faithfully recorded.
                                                 Good Hard Cover Very
Of Ice And Steel: A         D. Clayton Meadows   Don Meadows novel is a
Cataclysmic International                        breath of fresh air in the
Conflict Across Space And                        realm of novels involving
Time                                             submarines. Harking back to
                                                 the days when novels about
                                                 the Silent Service were
                                                 actually written by REAL sub
                                                 sailors who actually rode the
                                                 boats in both war and peace
                                                 time. Men like Edward L.
                                                 Beach not pretenders who
                                                 make up stuff like Tom
                                                 Clancey a wannabe
                                                 submariner who thinks he
                                                 knows it all after having a
                                                 tiger cruise.
                                                 Chief Meadows actually
                                                 served on the boats and
                                                 brings this to the table.
                                                 Things mentioned in the
                                                 book are how things work on
                                                 both US and Russian boats.
                                                 And yes the weapons used
                                                 by the protagonist were real
                                                 and are the grandparents of
                                                 todays weapons.
                                                 The novel orbits around
                                                 some projects the Nazi's
                                                 were actually investigating
                                                 such as an Artic base of
                                                 operations. To this day what
                                       happened to some German
                                       U-boats and some end of
                                       the war missions remain
                                       unsolved mysteries. There
                                       are some detail nuts who will
                                       take Mr. Meadows to task
                                       but as this is a work of fiction
                                       for sake of the story some
                                       details are knowingly
                                       changed for the stories sake
                                       as far as the U-boat is
                                       concerned. If anyone doubts
                                       Mr. Meadows expertise and
                                       resources used they should
                                       check out
                              and the
                                       many articles there from
                                       many people in the know.
                                       This site is THE site for
                                       details on not only R/C
                                       submarines but REAL
                                       submarines as the majority
                                       of people there are either
                                       active Submariners or Ex
                                       submariners from around the
                                       The novel itself while 543
                                       pages long is a very smooth
                                       fast read and while some
                                       areas may seem to be
                                       liberties taken for charecter
                                       development they are in fact
                                       an insight into the
                                       submariners mindset. I
                                       should know I rode a
                                       Boomer (SSBN) myself.
STAR WARS® LEGACY OF   Aaron Allston   Evil is on the move as the
THE FORCE: EXILE                       Galactic Alliance and Jedi
                                       order battle forces seen and
                                       unseen, from rampant
                                       internal treachery to the
                                       nightmare of all-out war.
                                       With each victory against the
                                       Corellian rebels, Jacen Solo
                                       becomes more admired,
                                       more powerful, and more
                                       certain of achieving galactic
                                       peace. But that peace may
                                       come with a price. Despite
                                       strained relationships
                                       caused by opposing
                                       sympathies in the war, Han
                                          and Leia Solo and Luke and
                                          Mara Skywalker remain
                                          united by one frightening
                                          suspicion: someone
                                          insidious is manipulating this
                                          war, and if he or she isn't
                                          stopped, all efforts at
                                          reconciliation may be for
                                          naught. And as sinister
                                          visions lead Luke to believe
                                          that the source of the evil is
                                          none other than Lumiya,
                                          Dark Lady of the Sith, the
                                          greatest peril revolves
                                          around Jacen himself.
Star Wars®: Allegiance   Timothy Zahn     Author Timothy Zahn returns
                                          to the Star Wars galaxy next
                                          year with his next book, Star
                                          Wars: Allegiance. Here's a
                                          first look at its cover, by
                                          artist John Van Fleet.

                                          In Star Wars: Allegiance,
                                          which takes place during the
                                          time between Episodes IV
                                          and V, Luke Skywalker is
                                          still new to all this Jedi
                                          business. Han Solo isn't sure
                                          how much he's willing to
                                          commit to the Rebel
                                          Alliance. Princess Leia is
                                          trying to help run the
                                          Rebellion and wondering
                                          why Han is so infuriating.
                                          The young Mara Jade is one
                                          of the most valued agents of
                                          the evil Emperor. And a
                                          team of stormtroopers goes
                                          rogue, deciding to mete out
                                          justice their own way...
Star Wars® Darth Bane:   Drew Karpyshyn   The Sith were in shambles.
Path of Destruction                       In-fighting among their ranks
                                          allowed the Jedi to thwart
                                          their dark plans. One last
                                          battle to end an era resulted
                                          in the extinction of the Sith.
                                          Or so it was believed -- one
                                          Dark Lord survived.

                                          From the ashes emerged
                                          Darth Bane, the lone Sith
                                          who was able to foresee the
                                         inevitable doom of the
                                         misguided order, and learn
                                         from this costly lesson. He
                                         forged a new order of
                                         secretive Sith, plotting from
                                         the shadows, carefully
                                         rebuilding power a
                                         generation at a time for
                                         centuries until the revenge of
                                         the Sith could finally be

                                         Who was this Dark Lord?
                                         What events forged the man
                                         who would split from the Sith
                                         ranks and entirely redefine
                                         the order?
Space Wars   Paul Anderson, Charles G.   Man's violence has erupted
             Waugh                       again and again, and there
                                         is no end in sight. History
                                         has shown the
                                         predominance of war--and in
                                         the future . . . Space Wars.
                                         Features the talents of
                                         Arthur C. Clarke, Gordon R.
                                         Dickson, Joe Haldeman and
                                         more. Original.
Space Wars   Steve Ditko                 This collection of artist Steve
                                         Ditko's finest comics
                                         includes a wealth of sci-fi
                                         work done prior to his world-
                                         shaking creation with Stan
                                         Lee, Spider-Man. Ditko's
                                         eclectic, sometimes
                                         surrealistic art proves both
                                         futuristic and retro as he
                                         takes readers into the
                                         cosmos to find star-crossed
                                         lovers in the backstabbing
                                         debacle, "Dead Reckoning."
                                         Then, the deadliest space
                                         ship in the galaxy hovers
                                         menacingly over readers
                                         while invaders demand
                                         complete surrender in "The
                                         Conquered Earth!" These,
                                         plus "The Creature from
                                         Corpus III" and "The
                                         Juggernauts of Jupiter," are
                                         just a sampling of the pulse-
                                         pounding tales featured in
                                         this book.
Space Wars   William Scott, Michael     Michael Coumatos is a
             Coumatos, William Birnes   former U.S. Navy test pilot,
                                        ship’s captain and
                                        commodore, U.S. Space
                                        Command director of war
                                        gaming, and a National
                                        Security Council
                                        counterterrorism advisor.
                                        William Scott is the Rocky
                                        Mountain bureau chief for
                                        Aviation Week and Space
                                        Technology magazine and a
                                        former U.S. Air Force flight-
                                        test engineer, who served
                                        with the National Security
                                        Agency and as aircrew on
                                        nuclear-sampling missions.
                                        With the help of New York
                                        Times bestselling author
                                        William J. Birnes, these
                                        renowned experts have
                                        joined forces to grippingly
                                        depict how the first hours of
                                        World War III might play out
                                        in the year 2010.
                                        Coumatos, Scott, and Birnes
                                        take the reader inside U.S.
                                        Strategic Command, where
                                        top military commanders,
                                        space-company executives,
                                        and U.S. intelligence experts
                                        are conducting a
                                        DEADSATS II wargame,
                                        exploring how the loss of
                                        critical satellites could lead
                                        to nuclear war. The players
                                        don’t know that the war they
                                        are gaming has already
                                        begun, miles above them in
                                        the lifeless, silent cold of
                                        space. Jam-packed with the
                                        actual systems and secret
                                        technologies the United
                                        States has or will soon field
                                        to protect its space assets,
                                        Space Wars describes a
                                        near-future nuclear
                                        nightmare that terrorists will
                                        relish but politicians prefer to
                                        ignore. In a quieter, more
                                        peaceful time, Space Wars
                                        would be an exciting work of
                                                                     fiction. But with the United
                                                                     States now at war, Space
                                                                     Wars is all too real.
Space Weapons, Earth              Robert Preston , Jennifer          Space weapons have been
Wars                              Gross, Michael Miller, Calvin      debated intensely in the
                                  Shipbaugh                          past. The latest instance of
                                                                     prominent debate is over
                                                                     their use for ballistic missile
                                                                     defense. But this is not the
                                                                     only possible role for space
                                                                     weapons, and that fact
                                                                     raises a further concern:
                                                                     What if an adversary were to
                                                                     develop such weapons?
                                                                     Could one? Why would it? It
                                                                     is time for broader public
                                                                     discussion of the issues.
                                                                     Before deciding to acquire or
                                                                     forgo space weapons for
                                                                     terrestrial conflict, the United
                                                                     States should fully discuss
                                                                     what such weapons can do,
                                                                     what they will cost, and the
                                                                     likely consequences of
                                                                     acquiring them. The authors
                                                                     of this report seek to aid this
                                                                     discussion not by arguing for
                                                                     or against space weapons
                                                                     but by describing their
                                                                     attributes, classifying and
                                                                     comparing them, and
                                                                     explaining how each might
                                                                     be used. The authors also
                                                                     explore how a nation might
                                                                     decide to acquire such
                                                                     weapons and how other
                                                                     nations might react.

V. Treaties and agreements
     Agreements and Treaties that governments
                  use in Space
International institutions play an essential role in space security, providing a venue to develop new
international law, discuss issues of collective concern, and mediate potential disagreements over the
allocation of scarce space resources in a peaceful manner. National space policies and doctrines
both reflect and inform space actors’ use of space, as well as their broad civil, commercial, and
military priorities. As such, the relationship of policies and doctrines to space security varies,
depending whether or not a specific policy or doctrine promotes the secure and
sustainable use of space by all space actors. Some space actors maintain explicit policies on
international cooperation in space with the potential to enhance transparency and exert a related
positive influence upon space security considerations. Such international cooperation frequently
supports the diffusion of capabilities to access and use space, increasing the number of space
actors with space assets and thus an interest in maintaining peaceful and equitable use of space.
National space policies and military doctrines may have adverse effects on space security if they
promote policies and practices designed to constrain the secure use of space by other actors or
advocate space-based weapons. Policies and doctrines that remain ambiguous on these counts may
nonetheless have a negative impact on space security if they are misperceived by peer competitors
as threatening, and stimulate the development of policies, doctrines, and capabilities to
counterbalance these assumed threats. Furthermore, military doctrines that rely heavily on space can
have mixed impacts on space security by both underscoring the need for the secure and sustainable
use of space, and pushing states to develop protection and negation capabilities to protect valuable
space systems.

                            Main multilateral agreements

Non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament aspects of outer space have evolved, in part,
through the development of treaties negotiated by the United Nation's Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). These agreements include:

      The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (formally titled as the Treaty on the Principles Governing the
       Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and
       Other Celestial Bodies.)

   1..The key principles of the Outer Space Treaty are found in Articles I and II. Article I declares
   that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is "the province of all mankind"
   and "shall be free for the exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind,
   on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law."

   2.Pursuant to Article II, outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not
   "subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by
   any other means."

   3..Article III specifies that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other
   celestial bodies is to be carried out «in accordance with international law, including the Charter
   of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security." The
   Outer Space Treaty, however, only explicitly forbids the orbiting of nuclear weapons or other
   weapons of mass destruction about the Earth, their installation on celestial bodies or the
   stationing of such weapons in outer space in any other manner. [28]

   The 1968 Rescue Agreement (formally entitled the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the
   Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space). Seen largely as a
   confidence building measure during the Cold War, the Rescue Agreement requires nations to
   render all necessary assistance to astronauts or cosmonauts in distress and to return them and
   their spacecraft promptly to the launching authority should they land within the jurisdiction of
   another State Party.[23]

      The 1972 Liability Convention (formally entitled as the Convention on International
       Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects). Created to ensure prompt and equitable
       compensation for victims of damage caused by space objects, the Liability Convention
       reinforces the view that states are legally responsible for their activities in outer space. This
       obligation was made multilateral in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, which
       has 30 NATO and East European participants and is of unlimited duration. Presumably,
       Russia, France, the European Union as such, or any other state party to the CFE Treaty
       could also take legal action against moves toward space weaponization, basing its complaint
       on treaty provisions prohibiting interference with national technical means of verification.
       Legal action could also be taken in US courts by foreign or US commercial users of space
       satellites if these satellites were endangered or destroyed by US space weapons. [9].
      The 1975 Registration Convention (formally entitled the Convention on the Registration of
       Objects Launched into Outer Space establishes a mandatory and uniform registration system
       for objects launched into outer space. The Registration Convention requires mandatory
       reporting to the United Nations Secretary-General of information such as the date and
       location of the launch, basic orbital parameters after launch and the recovery date of the
       spacecraft. [26]

This central registry’s purported benefits are, in theory, effective management of space traffic,
enforcement of safety standards, and attribution of liability for damage. Furthermore, the
Convention acts as a space security confidence-building measure (CBM) by promoting

      The 1979 Moon Agreement (formally entitled the Agreement Governing the Activities of
       States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies). The Moon Agreement reiterates the Outer
       Space Treaty's obligation that the Moon be used «exclusively for peaceful purposes" and
       prohibits the «threat or use of force or any other hostile act or threat of hostile act on the
       Moon." It is likewise prohibited to use the Moon in order to commit any such act or to
       engage in any such threat in relation to the Earth, the Moon, spacecraft, and the personnel of
       spacecraft or artificial space objects.

The Moon Agreement also requires that the States Parties " not place in orbit around or other
trajectory to or around the Moon objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of
mass destruction or place or use such weapons on or in the Moon." [27]. This Agreement generally
echoes the space security language and spirit of the OST in terms of the prohibitions on aggressive
behavior on and around the Moon, including the installation of weapons and
military bases, as well as other non-peaceful activities. The Moon Agreement
is not widely ratified and lacks support from major space powers. Objections
to its provisions regarding an international regime to govern the exploitation
of the Moon’s natural resources, differences over the interpretation of the
Moon’s natural resources as the “common heritage of mankind,” and the right
to inspect all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations, and installations
belonging to any other party appear to have kept most states from ratifying this
Agreement. [25]
              Signature and ratification of major space treaties
Treaty                       Date                   Ratifications            Signatures

Outer Space Treaty           1967                          98                     27

Rescue Agreement             1968                          88                     25

Liability Convention         1972                          82                     25

Registration Convention       1975                         44                      4

Moon Agreement                1979                          10                     5


      Bilateral agreements between the United States and Russia.

During the Cold War and shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States and Russia
concluded several bilateral agreements with space arms control components, namely:

the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (1972), prohibits the development of nation-wide defenses
against long-range missiles. Bans the development, testing, or deployment of space-based missile
defense components.
 the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) I Interim Agreement (1972), allows the use of
satellites (national technical means of verification) for treaty verification and forbids interference
with these satellites.
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987), forbids interference with satellite
treaty verification measures.
 the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) I (1991). Forbids interference with satellite treaty
verification measures.
Under the second Bush Administration, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002,
opening up the possibility of U.S. development, testing, and deployment of space-based ABM
systems. [4]

                                       UN Resolutions

  More than 130 States have interests at stake either as space-faring nations or indirectly benefiting
from the use of commercial satellites. There is an international consensus on the general principle of
‘the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space’, as shown by the regular
adoption by the UN General Assembly, without any negative vote, of a number of resolutions since
1990. The resolution asks all states to refrain from actions contrary to the peaceful use of outer
space and calls for negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament on a multilateral agreement to
prevent an arms race in outer space. Most of these resolutions have been unanimous and without
opposition, although the United States and a few other governments have abstained.
   Following up on the original Outer Space Treaty, in 1981 the UN General Assembly two
    related resolutions: one put forward by the USSR {A/RES/36/99} calling for the Committee
    on Disarmament to begin negotiations on a “treaty to prohibit the stationing of weapons of
    any kind in outer space”; the other drafted by several Western countries {A/RES/36/97C}
    asking the CD to “consider the question of negotiating effective and verifiable agreements
    aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space” and making anti-satellite weapons a
    priority. [10]
   In 1996 the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on International Cooperation in
    the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Use and Benefit and in the Interest of All
    States (Res. 51/122). An annex to the Declaration stated that “international cooperation in
    the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes ... shall be conducted in
    accordance with the provisions of international law, including the Charter of the United
    Nations and the Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
    Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. It shall
    be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all States, irrespective of their degree of
    economic, social or scientific and technological development, and shall be the province of
    all mankind. Particular account should be taken of the needs of developing countries.”
   On 29 November 2001 an item entitled “Prevention of an arms race in outer space” was
    included in the provisional agenda for the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly in
    accordance with Assembly Res. 56/23.

   At the first meeting of the fifty-seventh session, on 27th September 2002, the First
    Committee decided to hold a general debate on all disarmament and international security
    items included in the provisional agenda. Regarding Outer Space, the First Committee had
    before it a letter dated 18 September 2002 from the Permanent Representatives of China and
    the Russian Federation to the UN Secretary General (A/57/418). In addition on 15 October,
    the representative of Egypt, on behalf of various nations, introduced a resolution entitled
    “Prevention of an arms race in outer space” (A/C.1/57/L.30). At its 18th meeting, on 22
    October, the Committee adopted this resolution by a recorded vote of 151 to none, with 2
    abstentions, the United States and Israel.[24]
   On 27 August 2004 China called for an international consensus and a legally-binding
    agreement to prevent an arms race in outer space. China’s Ambassador for Disarmament
    Affairs, Hu Xiaodi, told delegates to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament that,
    “In our view, the priority concern is to further consolidate an international consensus on
    prevention of weaponization and an arms race in outer space in the form of a legal
    commitment or a legal instrument.” Hu introduced two informal papers—initiated jointly by
    China and Russia—outlining the two countries’ concerns over the lack of definition and
    verification of arms in outer space and concluding that verification will be highly difficult in
    terms of cost and technology—adding that a verification protocol may be needed in the
   The conference on ‘Safeguarding Space Security: Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer
    Space’ was held on 21-22 March 2005, and is jointly hosted by the Governments of the
    People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, the United Nations Institute for
    Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), and the Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-
    Proliferation Research. The conference was financially supported by the Government of the
    People’s Republic of China and the Simons Foundation. The discussions brought the issue
    of space security on to a new level of political immediacy and urgency. The momentum of
    debates around the world was considered an encouraging prospect. Notes of the following
    1. Space is for everybody and havoc in space means havoc for everybody.
    2. Cooperation is the key to dealing with space activities, not only because space is a common
       heritage for all but also because of the significant costs incurred in space exploration.
    3. The gap in technological capabilities is increasing. The volume of investment in technology
       R&D and involvement in space activities by commercial investors is something we should
       remain attentive to as we all have an interest at stake.
    4. Space debris havoc would damage the interests of all and put human exploration of space to
       an end. [61]

Efforts to control and tame space weapons are coming earlier in the cycle and space weaponization
may emerge more slowly with a longer interval before the first use of these devices as weapons than
was the time between Trinity and Hiroshima. Consequently, there may be more time to play out the
recurrent contest between human capacity to invent new weapons and the efforts of human society
to control them. Let us hope that this time is well used. Both the United States and Russia are
subject to all major international treaties and agreements that require using space for peaceful
purposes only. It is in the interests of all humankind to ensure that the research and usage of outer
space, including the moon and other celestial objects, pursues peaceful goals so that all may

    Arguments for and against one of the Outer
                  Space Treaty
In January, 1967 the Outer Space Treaty or, more formally, the Treaty on Principles Governing the
Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies (18 U.S.T. 2410, T.I.A.S. No. 6347, 610 U.N.T.S. 205) -- the document widely regarded as the
Magna Carta of space law -- was opened for signature.

                                    On January 27, 1967, in Washington, London, Moscow, the U.S. signed
                                    the Outer Space Treaty.
                                    For the record, the U.S. Senate ratified it April 25, 1967. President
                                    Johnson ratified it May 24, 1967. And on October 10, 1967, the U.S.
                                    ratification was deposited at Washington, London, and Moscow; that's
                                    the day, for better or worse, the Outer Space Treaty entered into

                                    It's not easy being an international treaty, and the OST certainly has
                                    its share of critics. You can spot the Treaty's flaws, shortcomings and
                                    unanswered questions from orbit. Legal scholars and others have lined
                                    up for decades to propose amending, redrafting, withdrawing from or
                                    abandoning the oft-times beleaguered Treaty.

                                    But for now, as Prof. Reynolds points out, "Among all of the treaties
                                    relating to activity in outer space, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967
enjoys the broadest subscription and the highest regard. Although some of the regard for the Treaty may
stem as much from sentiment as from any concrete benefit it provides--the Outer Space Treaty having
been a triumph of consensus and forward-looking thought at a time when cold war tensions and narrow
nationalism were the norm--the Outer Space treaty does accomplish a great deal."

The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs reports that (as of 1/1/06) 98 States have ratified and an additional
27 have signed the Outer Space Treaty; and summarizes the principles set forth in the treaty that
"provides the basic framework on international space law" as follows:
 the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all
countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
 outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
 outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or
occupation, or by any other means;
 States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial
bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
 the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
 astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
 States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-
governmental activities;
 States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

                                  Just a bit of background:
The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966 and agreement was
reached in the General Assembly in the same year (resolution 2222 (XXI). The Treaty was largely
based on the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration
and Use of Outer Space, which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1962
(XVIII) in 1963, but added a few new provisions. The Treaty was opened for signature by the three
depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of
America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967.
December 2001, the General Assembly once again passed, by 156 votes to zero opposed, a
resolution calling for negotiation in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament of a treaty to prevent
an arms race in outer space. This time, there were four abstentions to the resolution. The now
customary trio of the United States, Micronesia, and Israel was joined by a fourth state, Georgia.
The resolution asks all treaty parties to refrain from actions contrary to the peaceful use of outer
space and calls for negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament on multilateral agreements to
prevent an arms race in outer space.[45].
 Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. armed forces have become almost totally–and uniquely–
dependent on a whole array of satellite-based communications, intelligence gathering, and
command and control. At the same time, civilian use of satellites for communications, weather
forecasting, disaster relief and much else has grown by leaps and bounds.
Given this global trend, the need for a treaty to protect satellites against attack is obvious. In the
Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD), efforts to launch negotiations banning weapons in
space and limiting ground-based threats go back to 1982 under an agenda item, "the prevention of
an arms race in outer space (PAROS)." Despite their recent test, the Chinese have been amongst the
most vociferous advocates of a PAROS treaty, and have consistently refused to approve a CD work
program that does not include PAROS. Even the European Union last year declared PAROS "an
essential condition for strengthening strategic stability and for... the free exploration and use of
outer space for peaceful purposes by all states."[14]
Paradoxically, the world leader in satellite technology has opposed a PAROS treaty, and has
consistently refused multilateral solutions to the ASAT problem. The U.S. opposes creating a
working group even to discuss the issue of banning weapons in space, abstaining on the annual vote
in the UN General Assembly. In 2005 the U.S. became the only nation to vote against the call for a
ban on weapons in space, relying instead on unilateral dominance. The U.S. Space Command's
statement of doctrine, "Vision 2020," speaks of a "critical need to control the space medium," and
establishing space as a sole American "area of responsibility," asserting its well-known vision of
unilateral political order beyond the atmosphere.[43]

  This is not an idle boast. While the U.S. has experimented with ASAT weapons since the 1980s, it
is the only nation that has a fully deployed, ASAT-capable system: The anti-ballistic missile hit-to-
kill interceptors recently deployed in Alaska. While poor at their designated task of finding
incoming ICBM warheads, they could more easily adapt to an ASAT mission.
The Chinese ASAT test was a wake-up call both for the United States and the world. It brings into
stark relief the now unavoidable choice between two competing and incompatible visions of space
security: A multilateral regime that stabilizes the space environment through universal agreement,
or one of attempted unilateral domination that will inevitably lead to armed competition in space
and thus a threat both to military security and peaceful economic growth.
For many years, Canada has supported a multilateral approach to controlling space weapons. It has
solidly contributed to one of the most complex areas of any successful arms control treaty: The
negotiation of a verification regime. In 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs published a
consultative working paper on a "space security index," with the aim of establishing an agreed body
of knowledge from which to commence negotiations.
Canada needs to put this knowledge to use in creative international political leadership with the aim
of negotiating a space security treaty. What better time to do this than on the 40th anniversary of the
Outer Space Treaty. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has done little since its 2004
initiative. Its stated multilateral goals are modest, eschewing space treaty leadership with the
admonition that "We are not likely to achieve [space security] in one giant leap. Our aim is
therefore to make progress through small, practical and achievable steps which create the
preconditions for space actors to consider space weapons to be of marginal utility". More
worryingly, rumors persist that Canada may change its mind and join the U.S. Ballistic Missile
Defense program.[14]

                        Position of Governments

For many years annual UN General Assembly resolutions calling for the Conference on
Disarmament to negotiate a treaty to Prevent an Arms Race in Outer Space have passed by
overwhelming positive votes (160-175 countries in favor), with no negative votes, and 2–4
abstentions. The key, persistent abstentions have been those of the USA and Israel. Officials in both
these countries have publicly expressed support for national programs to place weapons in space.
Virtually all other countries have opposed such programs, and many of them have made statements
to that effect at the UN, in Geneva, and in other forums.
The individual country positions reported here are limited to five: official representations from the
USA and Israel, articulating national goals for placing weapons in space; and statements by officials
from China, the UK, and Russia, which have played leading roles in calling for a treaty to ban such

United Kingdom The British government’s position is as follows:
The focus of the UK governments’ policy on space is on civil and scientific uses, but the security
benefits we derive from its military use are important. Satellite communications, early warning,
navigation and sensing are all integral to our national security responsibilities. The cornerstone of
international space law is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which the UK is a Depository. This treaty
places significant constraints
on military activity in space: it bans the deployment of WMD in space and military activity on the
moon and other celestial bodies. The UK continues to be a firm supporter. As national security
activities in space have grown, so have concerns by some states about the risk of an arms race in
outer space. Some states
would wish to see additional and more extensive arms control measures. We recognize colleagues’
concerns and we support the annual resolution on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space
(PAROS) at the UN. However, there is no international consensus on the need for further legal
codification of the use of space, which would be difficult both to agree and verify.

United States The United States is actively pursuing efforts to place weapons in space and has
described the primary purposes of these efforts as follows:
• To improve the US’s situational awareness and view of the “battle space” in space;
• To find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess other nations’ space capabilities;
• To institute the appropriate protective and defensive measures, thus ensuring that friendly forces
can continuously conduct space operations across the entire spectrum of conflict; and
• To establish operations that can deceive, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy adversary space

Israel On 10 January 2005 Yuval Steinitz, chairman of Israel’s Defense and Foreign Affairs
Committee, called for the development and deployment of a space-based missile defense system
and commented on the need for an offensive space-based military capability. Steinitz said that Israel
must compensate for its lack of strategic depth on land by expanding use of sea- and space-based
weapons. Steinitz also urged defense and industry officials to consider future developments of anti-
satellite missiles, satellite-attacking lasers and ship-based missiles “that can strike the skies.” The
Chairman also stated that “In Israel, our strategic Achilles’ heel is our miniscule geographical size,
this lack of ground territory and our obligation to defend the homeland from attack drives the need
to develop a strategic envelope of air, sea and space forces not only for defense, but for attack.”
Referring to space-based weaponry programs in the United States, Steinitz said Israel must not
ignore trends and technologies that can extend the battlefield beyond the atmosphere.[42]

China Hu Xiaodi, Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs, gave China’s position at the 28 March
2002 Plenary of the Conference on Disarmament, saying:
The last 50 years have witnessed the process of research, deployment and reduction of nuclear
weapons. History tells us how tedious a task it has been to achieve nuclear disarmament when these
weapons were already developed and deployed. To avoid following the same disastrous path, we
are duty-bound to take preventive measures immediately for the prevention of the weaponization of
outer space—to nip the danger in the bud, so to speak—so that we would not have to be confronted
with the same complex and thorny issues such as “outer space weapon disarmament” and “the non-
proliferation of outer space weapons” in the future. China has also called on the CD to reestablish
the Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS and start to negotiation towards one or more legal instruments
on the prohibition of weapons in outer space. [46]

Russia put forward a proposal for a moratorium on the deployment of weapons in outer space and
the prohibition of the weaponization of outer space at the UN General Assembly in 2004.
In a speech to the General Assembly on 26 September 2001 Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov
said that Russia invites the world community to start working out a comprehensive agreement on
the non-deployment of weapons in outer space and on the non-use or threat of force against space
objects. In particular, the agreement could contain the following elements:
• outer space should be used in the interests of maintaining peace and security;
• an obligation not to place in the orbit around the Earth any objects carrying any kinds of weapons,
not to install such weapons on celestial bodies or station such weapons in outer space in any other
• an obligation not to use or threaten to use force against space objects;
• a provision establishing a verification mechanism for the implementation of the agreement on the
basis of confidence-building and transparency.
As the first practical step in this direction, a moratorium could be declared on the deployment of
weapons in outer space pending a formal agreement. Russia would be willing to make such a
commitment immediately, provided that the other leading space powers join this moratorium. [49]

VI. Non-treaty approaches to space
                        National Missile Defense
The objective of the National Missile Defense (NMD) program is to develop and maintain the
option to deploy a cost effective, operationally effective, and Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
compliant system that will protect the United States against limited ballistic missile threats,
including accidental or unauthorized launches or Third World threats.

The primary mission of National Missile Defense is defense of the United States (all 50 states)
against a threat of a limited strategic ballistic missile attack from a rogue nation. Such a system
would also provide some capability against a small accidental or unauthorized launch of strategic
ballistic missiles from more nuclear capable states. The means to accomplish the NMD mission are
as follows:

      Field an NMD system that meets the ballistic missile threat at the time of a deployment
      Detect the launch of enemy ballistic missile(s) and track.
      Continue tracking of ballistic missile(s) using ground based radars.
      Engage and destroy the ballistic missile warhead above the earth’s atmosphere by force of

The National Missile Defense Program was originally a technology development effort. In 1996, at
the direction of the Secretary of Defense, NMD was designated a Major Defense Acquisition
Program and transitioned to an acquisition effort. Concurrently, BMDO was tasked with developing
a deployable system within three years. This three-year development period culminated in 2000,
and the Department of Defense began a Deployment Readiness Review in June 2000. Using that
review, President Clinton was to make a deployment decision based on four criteria: the potential
ICBM threat to the United States; the technical readiness of the NMD system; the projected cost of
the NMD system; and potential environmental impact of the NMD system. Rather than make a
decision, President Clinton deferred the deployment decision to his successor. The White House in
choosing this action cited several factos. Among them were the lack of test under realistic
conditions, the absence of testing of the booster rocket, and lingering questions over the system's
ability to deal with countermeasures. The deployment decision now rests with President George W.
Bush, who is reexamining the Clinton NMD system along with a variety of other proposals. In the
meantime, work is continuing on technology development for the NMD system.

The NMD system would be a fixed, land-based, non-nuclear missile defense system with a space-
based detection system, consisting of five elements:

      Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs)
      Battle Management, Command, Control, and Communications (BMC3), which includes:
          o Battle Management, Command, and Control (BMC2), and
          o In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS)
      X-Band Radars (XBRs)
      Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR)
      Defense Support Program satellites/Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)

The Ground Based Inteceptor is the “weapon” of the NMD system. Its mission is to intercept
incoming ballistic missile warheads outside the earth’s atmosphere (exoatmospheric) and destroy
them by force of the impact. During flight, the GBI is sent information from the NMD BMC2
through the IFICS to update the location of the incoming ballistic missile, enabling the GBI
onboard sensor system to identify and home-in on the assigned target. The GBI element would
include the interceptor and associated launch and support equipment, silos, facilities, and personnel.
The GBI missile has two main components: an EKV and solid propellant boosters. Each GBI site
would be adequate in size to initially accommodate 20 interceptor missiles, with expansion possible
to as many as 100 interceptors. The GBI would be a dormant missile that would remain in the
underground launch silo until launch. Launches would occur only in defense of the United States
from a ballistic missile attack. There would be no flight testing of the missiles at the NMD
deployment site.
The NMD Battle Management, Command and Control (BMC2), a subelement of the BMC3
element, is the “brains” of the NMD system. In the event of a launch against the United States, the
NMD system would be controlled and operated through the BMC2 subelement. The BMC2
subelement providesextensive decision support systems, battle management systems, battle
management displays, and situation awareness information. Surveillance satellites and ground
radars locate targets and communicate tracking information to battle managers, which process the
information and communicate target assignments to interceptors. The BMC2 subelement operations
would consist mostly of data processing and management functions associated with the NMD
system and function as the centralized point for readiness, monitoring, and maintenance
The NMD In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) is a subelement of the BMC3
element and would be geographically distributed ground stations that provide communications links
to the GBI for in-flight target and status information between the GBI and the BMC2. Up to 14
IFICS (7 pairs) would be required to support the NMD system. The IFICS would consist of a radio
transmitter/receiver enclosed in a 5.8-meter (19-foot) diameter inflatable radome adjacent to the
equipment shelters. The IFICS site would require no permanent onsite support personnel. Personnel
would only be required when the IFICS needs maintenance.
The X-band / Ground Based Radars (XBR) would be ground based, multi-function radars. For
NMD, they would perform tracking, discrimination, and kill assessments of incoming ballistic
missiles. The radars use high frequency and advanced radar signal processing technology to
improve target resolution, which permits the radar to more accurately discriminate between closely-
spaced objects. The radar would provide data from earlier phases of a ballistic missiles trajectory
and real-time continuous tracking data to the BMC2. The site would include a radar mounted on its
pedestal and associated control and maintenance facility,a power generation facility, and a 150-
meter (492-foot) controlled area. The radar would be radiating during a ballistic missile threat,
testing, exercises, training, or when supporting collateral missions such as tracking space debris or a
Space Shuttle mission.

The Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) are phased-array surveillance radars used to
detect and track ballistic missiles targeted at the United States. Software upgrades to these existing
early warning radars would provide the capability to support NMD surveillance requirements.

Existing Defense Support Program satellites provide the U.S. early-warning satellite capability. The
satellites are comparatively simple, inertially fixed, geosynchronous earth orbit satellites with an
unalterable scan pattern. Space Based Infrared System would replace the Defense Support
Program satellites sometime in the next decade. NMD would use whichever system is in place when
a deployment decision is made and can use a combination of the two if the transition is still in
progress. SBIRS would be an element that future NMD systems would utilize. SBIRS is currently
being developed by the Air Force independently of NMD as part of the early warning satellite
systemupgrade which would replace the Defense Support Program satellites. For the NMD
program, the SBIRS constellation of sensor satellites would acquire and track ballistic missiles
throughout their trajectory. This information would provide the earliest possible trajectory estimate
to the BMC2 subelement.

To meet the Capstone Requirements Document (CRD) requirements, the NMD Joint Project Office
(JPO) at BMDO has created a program to develop a defensive system that will evolve through three
levels of capability:

      Capability 1 satisfies CRD Threshold requirements against unsophisticated threats. The
       Administration and the Congress want the option of fielding this capability within three
       years of a deployment decision. The system provides the required performance against an
       unsophisticated rogue-state threat at the Threshold level. The Threshold threat, the details of
       which are classified, is said to consist of an attack of five single-warhead missiles with
       unsophisticated decoys that could be discriminated, plus chaff, obscurant particles, flares,
       jammers, and other countermeasures.
      Capability 2 provides the required performance against any authorized, unauthorized, or
       accidental attack by sophisticated payloads at the Threshold level. The Threshold threat, the
       details of which are classified, is said to consist of an attack of five single-warhead missiles,
       each with either a few (about four) credible decoys that could not be descriminated [and
       would have to be intercepted], plus chaff, obscurant particles, flares, jammers, and other
      Capability 3 satisfies the CRD Objective. The system provides the required performance
       against any authorized, unauthorized, or accidental attack by sophisticated payloads at the
       Objective level. The Objective, the details of which are classified, is said to consist of an
       attack of twenty single-warhead missiles, each with either a few (perhaps as many as five)
       credible decoys that could not be descriminated [and would have to be intercepted], or a
       larger number of less sophisticated decoys that could be discriminated, plus chaff, obscurant
       particles, flares, jammers, and other countermeasures.

The relationship between these Capability performance requirements and the Capability system
architectures continues to evolve. The 1999 Welch Report noted that the 2005 deployment, which
with 100 interceptors would appear to be the C2 Architecture, was in fact focused on addressing the
far less stressing C1 threat. The cost for the land-based NMD Capability 2 architecture with some
100 interceptors based in Alaska is about $13B to $14B for the post-FY97 RDT&E, procurement
and military construction.
As of early 2000 the NMD program goes beyond the original Capability 1, or "C1," architecture by
developing an "Expanded C1" architecture to be capable of defending all 50 states against threats
larger than the initial C1 architecture was designed to handle. The Expanded C1 deployment option
builds on revised program guidance announced in 1999 year by the Secretary of Defense. For
planning purposes, the Expanded C1 system will incorporate 100 ground-based interceptors based
in Alaska and an advanced X-Band radar based at Shemya Island, also in Alaska. Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) for the C1 architecture, consisting of 20 interceptors, will take place in 2005. The
full 100 can be deployed by Fiscal Year 2007. This represents a two year delay from the plan
outlined in 1999, under which the first 20 interceptors could have beend deployed by 2003,
with 100 interceptors becoming operational by 2005.


The NMD program is conducting a series of Integrated Flight Tests [IFT] to progressively
demonstrate system capabilities. The target system is built by Sandia National Labs to replicate
decoys that might be seen in threat systems Integrated Flight Tests 3 and 4 were originally planned
to be conducted in 1998.

      IFT-1, on 17 January 1997, did not take place as planned when the Payload Launch Vehicle
       (PLV) carrying the EKV failed to launch from Kwajalein Missile Range. A a data-link
       malfunction between the PLV launcher and the ground control system which led to the
       ground control system aborting the launch prior to liftoff of the kill vehicle. A Multi-Service
       Launch System (MSLS) carrying target objects for the sensor test was successfully launched
       from Vandenberg AFB prior to the EKV launch abort, though no intercept of a target was to
       be attempted for the test.
      IFT-1A, on 07 July 1997, was a repeat of IFT-1 which BMDO claimed proved the ability of
       the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) sensor to identify and track objects in space. An
       intercept was not intended for this mission, which used a candidate infrared sensor built by
       Boeing. The claimed results of this test have been disputed by many experts.
      IFT-2, on 15 January 1998, proved the ability of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle sensor to
       identify and track objects in space. An intercept was not intended for this mission, which
       used a candidate infrared sensor built by Hughes (now Raytheon).
      IFT-3, on 02 October 1999, successfully demonstrated "hit to kill technology" to intercept
       and destroy the ballistic missile target. The target was simplied to include a single decoy,
       rather than the multiple decoys used in the two previous fly-by tests. Despite a failure in the
       star tracker, the inertial measurement unit [IMU] of the interceptor oriented the EKV [built
       by Boeing], which detected the decoy and based on this detection subsequently detected the
       target warhead, which was destroyed on impact. Critics noted that in this test the decoy
       paradoxically made it possible for the kill vehicle to detect the warhead, whereas in a
       combat situation decoys would make detection of the warhead more difficult. The intercept
       used representatives or prototypes of other elements in a "shadow" mode. They did not
       provide information to the interceptor as they would during a full system test or during an
       actual missile attack.
      IFT-4, on 18 January 2000, failed to intercept the target due to a failure of the EKV infrared
       homing sensors' cooling system [built Raytheon / Hughes] a few seconds before the planned
       intercept. This was the first test that integrated other elements of the NMD system into the
       actual test scenario.
      IFT-5, on 7 July 2000, was the first Integrated System Test featuring all NMD elements in
       the initial capability except for the interceptor booster. The test failed when the EKV did not
       separate from the surrogate booster used. As well, the test decoy failed to inflate.
      IFT-6, which was originally supposed to happen before the Deployment Readiness Review,
       is now scheduled shortly thereafter. The planned test in late July 2000 slipped to the Fall of
       2000 and is now scheduled for late 2001. This test will be the second Integrated System Test
       of all NMD elements in the initial capability except for the interceptor booster.
      IFT-7 was scheduled for early 2001. This test was initially scheduled to bes the first test in
       which the operational Ground Based Interceptor booster can be used to launch the EKV.
       However, as of mid-2000 this event had been slipped to the following test, IFT-8.
      IFT-8 was scheduled for mid-2001. As of mid-2000 this test is the first test in which the
       operational Ground Based Interceptor booster can be used to launch the EKV, replacing the
       stand-in Payload Launch Vehicle (PLV) used in earlier tests.
      IFT-9 is scheduled for late 2001.
      IFT-10 is scheduled for early 2002.
      IFT-11 is scheduled for mid-2002.
      IFT-12 is scheduled for late 2002.
      IFT-13 is scheduled for early 2003. This test is the first test in which the operational
       Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) can be used.
      IFT-14 is scheduled for mi-2003.
      IFT-15 is scheduled for 2003.
      IFT-16 is scheduled for 2004.
      IFT-17 is scheduled for 2004.
      IFT-18 is scheduled for 2004.
      IFT-19 is scheduled for 2005.


In mid 1993, the Department of Defense (DoD) conducted a Bottom-Up Review (BUR) to select
the strategy, force structure, and modernization programs for America's defense in the post-Cold
War era. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat to the U.S. homeland from a deliberate
or accidental ballistic missile attack by states of the former Soviet Union (FSU) or the Peoples
Republic of China (PRC) was judged to be highly unlikely. In addition, the ability of Third World
countries to acquire or develop a long range ballistic missile capability in the near future was
considered uncertain. As a prudent approach for responding to this uncertain threat, the Department
pursued a technology readiness strategy for National Missile Defense (NMD) to develop and
maintain the ability to deploy ballistic missile defenses for the United States should a threat emerge.
Following the 1994 elections, some in the new Congress began to call for the rapid acceleration of
national missile defense development, leading to deployment of a capable defense system as soon
as possible. This shift toward early deployment reflected a general sense that the risk of the rapid
emergence of a ballistic missile threat to the United States by determined rogue actors was
becoming increasingly acute. BMDO responded by creating a "Tiger Team" to develop an NMD
architecture capable of being deployed at the earliest possible date to counter the developing rogue
nation ballistic missile threat. The threat scenario addressed by the Tiger Team was the acquisition
of SS-25-like technology by Libya. The Tiger Team considered a number of NMD alternatives,
including options to deploy a system as early as possible, if required. The initial architecture the
Tiger Team considered was 20 Minuteman ICBMs -- retrofitted with kinetic kill vehicles -- at
Grand Forks AFB, ND, supported by a network of existing Early Warning Radars (EWRs)
operating with software upgrades to provide the necessary track information as an emergency
response system.
In February 1996, the Department completed a comprehensive Ballistic Missile Defense Program
Review that addressed changes that have occurred in the ballistic missile defense environment since
the 1993 BUR. For the NMD program, the findings of this review resulted in an adjustment to the
goal of the NMD program and a corresponding adjustment to the Future Years Defense Program
which includes additional resources in FY96-FY98 for NMD. The revised goal of the NMD
program is to develop, within three years, elements of an initial NMD system that could be
deployed within three additional years after a deployment decision. This approach is commonly
referred to as the NMD “3+3” program.
To achieve this goal, BMDO has initiated an NMD Deployment Readiness Program. In April 1996
the USD(A&T) initiated steps to designate NMD as an Acquisition Category (ACAT) 1D program
and in July 1996 the program successfully completed its first Overarching Integrated Product Team
(OIPT) review. The intent of the NMD Deployment Readiness Program is to position the U.S. to
respond to a strategic missile threat as it emerges by shifting emphasis from technology readiness to
deployment readiness. This approach focuses on demonstrating an NMD system level capability by
FY99, and being able to deploy that capability within an additional three years, if required to do so
by the threat. If no threat materializes at the end of the three year development period, evolutionary
development will continue on a path towards an objective system capability and the program will
continue to maintain the ability to deploy within three years after a decision is made to do so.

The NMD system is composed of several elements which are required to perform the key functions
involved in a ballistic missile defense engagement. The Ground Based Radar (GBR) and the Space
Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Low component (previously known as the Space and Missile
Tracking System) provide the dual sensor phenomenology required to address the full spectrum of
potential threats. In addition, Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR) are candidate sensors in the
event of an early NMD deployment within three years of the FY99 NMD integrated system test.
SBIRS, which will provide midcourse tracking of targets, is currently managed and funded by the
Air Force. The Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) is the weapon element that engages and destroys
the threat. The Battle Management/Command, Control, and Communications (BM/C3) element
provides engagement planning and human-in-control management of the engagement.

The formation of the United Missile Defense Company (UMDC), a joint venture equally owned by
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW, was announced on April 21, 1997. The company submitted
a proposal in response to an RFP issued by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to
conduct an NMD Lead System Integration (LSI) Concept Definition (CD) study. The Lead Systems
Integrator contractor has the responsibility to design, develop, test, integrate, and potentially deploy
and sustain the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. The LSI integrates all NMD element
development to include the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), Battle Management Command,
Control and Communications (BMC3), Ground Based Radar (GBR), Upgraded Early Warning
Radar (UEWR), Forward Based X-Band Radar (FBXB), and the Spaced Based Infrared Sensor
(SBIRS-Low) system when it becomes available. On 25 April 1997 the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization announced that two contracts for the concept definition study phase of the National
Missile Defense (NMD) Lead Systems Integrator were awarded to United Missile Defense
Company, Bethesda, MD, and Boeing North American Inc., Downey, CA. At the end of the initial
contract period, one firm would be selected for award of a contract to serve as the Lead Systems
Integrator for the NMD program, currently anticipated for April 1, 1998. The execution phase will
include an Integrated System Test in 1999, and culminate in a Deployment Readiness Review in
In fiscal years 1996 through 1998, Congress authorized and appropriated a total of $1,174 million
more than the President's budget requests for those years. The fiscal year 1999 funding estimate
does not include amounts that will be needed beginning in fiscal year 2001 to develop system
improvements to keep up with changes in the threat. About $765 million above the President's fiscal
year 1999 budget estimate will be needed in fiscal years 2001 through 2003


Future NMD funding requirements depend on how the system is designed and when and where it
will be deployed. The government and prime contractor have not yet agreed on a final system
design, and the deployment schedule and location will not be known until at least the fiscal year
2000 deployment review. To provide a basis for estimating near-term funding requirements, the
program office prepared four different life-cycle cost estimates, based on two locations--one at
Grand Forks, North Dakota, and the other in Alaska--and two capability levels--one available in
fiscal year 2003 and the other in fiscal year 2006 [an initial operating capability would be
established in fiscal year 2006, and the full operating capability would be achieved in fiscal year
2009.]. The life-cycle cost estimates show the total costs to develop and produce system
components, construct facilities, deploy the system, and operate it for 20 years.

The 3+3 program is designed to enable a system to be deployed as early as fiscal year 2003, but a
more capable system could be operational in fiscal year 2006. The primary differences between the
two capability levels used in the cost estimates are in the type and amount of hardware included.
The more capable system would have significantly more interceptors, fewer ground-based radars,
but would also include a space-based sensor system. The higher cost for a deployment in Alaska by
2003 is due, in large part, to the fact that less infrastructure currently exists there, transportation
costs are higher, the construction season is shorter, and the environment is harsher. After the space-
based sensor system is deployed, fewer ground-based radars will be needed for an Alaskan
deployment because of Alaska's location relative to potential threats. The requirement for fewer
radars is the primary reason an Alaskan deployment by fiscal year 2006 was estimated to have a
life-cycle cost slightly less than a deployment at Grand Forks in that same timeframe. With fewer
radars, operating costs would also be lower in Alaska.

The Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation prepared independent estimates of NMD program
costs in January 1998. Costs in the independent estimates were about 10 percent higher than the
estimates prepared by the program office, due primarily to the fact that the independent estimates
included "pre-planned product improvements" not included in the program office estimates. [7]
                     Patriot Missile Air Defense System, USA

Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air
defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles,
cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. Patriot (MIM-104)
is produced by Raytheon in Massachusetts and
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Florida.
"The Patriot missile is a long-range, all-altitude, all-
weather air defence system."

As well as the USA, Patriot is in service with Germany,
Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi
Arabia and Taiwan. It has been cleared for sale to

Patriot missile systems were deployed by US forces
during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The systems were
stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a
number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the
new PAC-3 and guidance enhanced missiles.                        [2]

                                      PATRIOT MISSILE

The Patriot missile is equipped with a Track-Via-
Missile (TVM) guidance system. Midcourse correction
commands are transmitted to the guidance system from
the mobile engagement control centre.

The target acquisition system in the missile acquires the
target in the terminal phase of flight and transmits the
data using the TVM downlink via the ground radar to
the engagement control station for final course
correction calculations. The course correction
commands are transmitted to the missile via the missile
track command uplink. The high-explosive 90kg
warhead is situated behind the terminal guidance

The range of the missile is 70km and maximum altitude
is greater than 24km. The minimum flight time is the
time to arm the missile, which is less than nine seconds,
and the maximum flight time is less than three and a
half minutes.                                                  [2]

                               PATRIOT GEM+UPGRADE
Raytheon has developed the Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM+), an upgrade to the PAC-2
missile. The upgrade involves a new fuse and the insertion of a new low-noise oscillator which
increases the seeker's sensitivity to low radar cross-section targets.

The GEM+ missile provides an upgraded capability to defeat air-breathing, cruise and ballistic
missiles, as a compliment to the PAC-3 missile. The first upgrade forebodies were delivered to the
US Army in November 2002. 376 missiles are being upgraded, of which 230 have been delivered.


A new Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile has increased effectiveness against tactical
ballistic and cruise missiles, through the use of advanced hit-to-kill technology. Lockheed Martin is
the prime contractor with Raytheon the systems integrator. The PAC-3 has a Ka-band millimetre
wave seeker developed by Boeing. The missile guidance system enables target destruction through
the kinetic energy released by hitting the target head-on. 16 PAC-3 missiles can be loaded on a
launcher, compared to four PAC-2 missiles.
"The Patriot missile is equipped with a Track-Via-Missile (TVM) guidance system."

PAC-3 entered low rate initial production in late 1999 and first LRIP production missiles of a total
of 92 were delivered in September 2001. A contract for 88 missiles was placed in December 2002
and another for 12 in March 2003. The missile was first deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom
in March/April 2003. In February 2004, Lockheed Martin was awarded a production contract for
159 PAC-3 missiles, which includes 22 missiles to replace those expended in Iraq. Deliveries are to
complete by April 2006.

A further contract for 156 missiles was received in February 2005. Of these missiles, 32 are for the
Netherlands and 16 for Japan under Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreements. Negotiations are also
underway for sales to South Korea and Taiwan. Lockheed Martin and EADS (formerly
DaimlerChrysler Aerospace) have established a joint venture company for the production of the
system for the German Air Force and, in September 2006, Germany requested the FMS of 72 PAC-
3 missiles.

                             M901 LAUNCHING STATION
                   The M901 launching station transports, points and launches the Patriot missile.
                   Each launcher has four missiles. The launcher is remotely operated via a VHF or
                   fibre optic data link from the engagement control station, which provides both
                   the missile prelaunch data and the fire command signal.


                        ENGAGEMENT CONTROL STATION

The AN/MSQ-104 engagement control station is the only manned station in a Patriot fire unit. The
control station communicates with the M901 launching stations, with other Patriot batteries and the
higher command headquarters.

The control station is manned by three operators, who have two consoles and a communications
station with three radio relay terminals. The digital weapon control computer is located next to the
VHF data link terminals.

The AN/MPQ-53 phased array radar carries out search, target detection, track and identification,
missile tracking and guidance and Electronic Counter-Ccountermeasures (ECCM) functions. The
radar is mounted on a trailer and is automatically controlled by the digital weapons control
computer in the engagement control station, via a cable link. The radar system has a range of up to
100km, capacity to track up to 100 targets and can provide missile guidance data for up to nine

The US Army Patriot radars are being upgraded by Raytheon. The upgrade kits provide greater
power for the radar and the addition of a wideband capability for improved target discrimination.
"The M901 launching station transports, points and launches the Patriot missile."

                                  TARGET ENGAGEMENT
A target engagement can be carried out in manual, semi-automatic or automatic mode. When the
decision has been made to engage the target, the engagement control station selects the launch
station or stations and pre-launch data is transmitted to the selected missile. After launch, the Patriot
missile is acquired by the radar.

The command uplink and the TVM downlink allow the missile's flight to be monitored and provide
missile guidance commands from the weapon control computer. As the missile approaches the
target, the TVM guidance system is activated and the missile is steered towards the target. A
proximity fuse detonates the high-explosive warhead.[2]

              International Space Station promote
                     cooperation in space
                                            About MIR

Russia's Mir Space Station has been in orbit for over 10 years. The first element of the station was
launched on February 20, 1986 at an inclination of 51.6 degrees. The current Mir Space Station is
actually a complex of different modules that have been pieced together.

The Mir module, the first module of the complex placed in orbit, is the main module of the station.
It provides docking ports for the other modules to attach to. There are five docking ports on the
transfer compartment of the Mir module. One along the long axis of the module, and 4 along the
radius in 90 degree increments. There is another docking port on the aft end of the Mir module. The
various modules that are attached to the docking ports can be moved around to different

The Soyuz-TM spacecraft is used to transport crews and cargo to and from the Mir Space Station.
The Soyuz can dock on the axial docking port on the transfer compartment.

The Progress-M spacecraft is a cargo and resupply vehicle used to send science equipment and data
to and from Mir. It can also be used to conduct experiments either while attached to the complex, or
during free-flight. When sent back to Earth, it can also be used to remove waste materials from the
Space Station.

To view pictures and virtual reality clips of the Mir space station, visit our RKA Pictures page. To
see where the Mir is right now, visit our new Java applet, Liftoff's Spacecraft Tracking System, or
our current Mir location page.[16]

                               International cooperation

                                           This image was recorded by astronauts as the Space
                                           Shuttle Atlantis approached the Russian space station
                                           prior to docking during the STS-76 mission. Sporting
                                           spindly appendages and solar panels, Mir is seen orbiting
                                           about 350 kilometers above New Zealand's South Island
                                           and the city of Nelson near Cook Strait.


In September 1993 U.S. Vice-President Al Gore and Russian prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin
announced plans for a new space station, which would later be called the International Space
Station, or ISS. They also agreed that, in preparation for this new project, the U.S. would be largely
involved in the Mir project in the years ahead, under the code name Phase One (the ISS being Phase
Two). Space shuttles would take part in the transportation of supplies and people to and from Mir.
U.S. astronauts would live on Mir for many months on end. Thus the U.S. could share and learn
from the unique experience that Russia had with long duration space trips.

The American Space Shuttle Atlantis docked to the Russian Mir Space Station

Starting from March 1995 seven U.S. astronauts consecutively spent 28 months on Mir. During
their stay the space station went through rough times and several acute emergencies occurred,
notably a large fire on February 23, 1997, and a collision with a Progress (unmanned) cargo ship on
June 25, 1997. In both occasions complete evacuation (there was a Soyuz escape craft for return to
earth) was avoided by a narrow margin. The second disaster left a hole in the Spektr module, which
then was sealed off from the rest of the station. Several space walks were needed to restore full
power to Mir (one of the "space walks" was inside the Spektr module from which all the air had

The cooperation between the U.S. and Russia proved far from easy. Distrust, lack of coordination,
language problems, different views of each others' responsibilities and divergent interests caused
many problems. After the emergencies, the U.S. Congress and NASA considered whether the U.S.
should abandon the program out of concern for astronauts' safety. NASA administrator Daniel S.
Goldin decided to continue the program. In June 1998, the final U.S. Mir astronaut Andy Thomas
left the station aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery.

The story of Phase One is described in great detail by Bryan Burrough in his book Dragonfly:
NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir (1998).

The Mir space station was originally planned to be followed by a Mir 2, and elements of that
project, including the core module (now called Zvezda) which was labeled as "Mir-2" for quite
some time in the factory, are now an integral part of the International Space Station.[30]

                                 List of Mir Expeditions
  This table shows us how many different nations cooperate in one space station:

                                           Launch        Flight    Landing       Flight Duration
  Expedition             Crew
                                            Date          Up        Date         Down - Days -

                                                          July 16,
                  Leonid Kizim,        March 13,                                            125.00
                                                    Soyuz 1986                  Soyuz
Mir EO-1          Vladimir             1986                                                  75 on
                                                    T-15  12:34:05              T-15
                  Soloviyov            12:33:09 UTC                                            Mir

                                 February 5,
                                              Soyuz 29, 1987                    Soyuz
Mir LD-1          Yuri Romanenko 1987                                                       326.48
                                              TM-2 09:16:15                     TM-3
                                 21:38:16 UTC

                                                          July 30,
                                       February 5,
                  Aleksandr                         Soyuz 1987                  Soyuz
Mir EO-2                               1987                                                 174.14
                  Laveykin                          TM-2 01:04:12               TM-2
                                       21:38:16 UTC

                  Alexander      July 22, 1987 Soyuz July 30,                   Soyuz
Mir EP-1                                                                                        7.96
                  Viktorenko,    01:59:17 UTC TM-3 1987                         TM-2
                  Muhammed Faris                     01:04:12
              - Syria                                       UTC

                                       July 22, 1987 Soyuz 29, 1987     Soyuz
Soyuz TM-3    Pavlovich                                                         160.30
                                       01:59:17 UTC TM-3 09:16:15       TM-3

                                       December 21,
              Anatoli                               Soyuz 29, 1987      Soyuz
Mir LII-1                              1987                                       7.92
              Levchenko                             TM-4 09:16:15       TM-3
                                       11:18:03 UTC

                                       December 21,
              Vladimir Titov ,                      Soyuz 21, 1988      Soyuz
Mir EO-3                               1987                                     365.24
              Musa Manarov                          TM-4 09:57:00       TM-6
                                       11:18:03 UTC

              Anatoly                                     June 17,
              Solovyev,                June 7, 1988 Soyuz 1988          Soyuz
Mir EP-2      Viktor Savinykh,                                                    9.84
                                       14:03:13 UTC TM-5 10:12:32       TM-4
              Aleksandr P.
              Aleksandrov - Bulgaria

              Vladimir Lyakhov
              ,                August 29,
                                            Soyuz 7, 1988               Soyuz
Mir EP-3      Abdul Ahad       1988                                               8.85
                                            TM-6 00:49:38               TM-5
              Mohmand -        04:23:11 UTC
                                                          April 27,
                                       August 29,
                                                    Soyuz 1989          Soyuz
Mir LD-2      Valeri Polyakov          1988                                     240.94
                                                    TM-6 02:57:58       TM-7
                                       04:23:11 UTC
                                                          April 27,
              Alexander A.             November 26,
                                                    Soyuz 1989          Soyuz
Mir EO-4      Volkov,                  1988                                     151.47
                                                    TM-7 02:57:58       TM-7
              Sergei Krikalev          15:49:34 UTC
                                November 26,
              Jean-Loup                      Soyuz 21, 1988             Soyuz
Mir Aragatz                     1988                                             24.76
              Chrétien - France              TM-7 09:57:00              TM-6
                                15:49:34 UTC
              Alexander                                   February
                                       September 5,
              Viktorenko,                           Soyuz 19, 1990      Soyuz
Mir EO-5                               1989                                     166.29
              Aleksandr                             TM-8 04:36:18       TM-8
                                       21:38:03 UTC
              Serebrov                                    UTC
Mir EO-6      Anatoly                  February 11,   Soyuz August 9,   Soyuz   179.05
                Solovyev,          1990         TM-9   1990         TM-9
                Aleksandr          06:16:00 UTC        07:33:57
                Balandin                               UTC
                Gennadi                               December
                                   August 1,
                Manakov,                        Soyuz 10, 1990      Soyuz
Mir EO-7                           1990                                     130.86
                Gennady                         TM-10 06:08:12      TM-10
                                   09:32:21 UTC
                Strekalov                             UTC
                                                     May 26,
                                  December 2,
                Viktor Afanasyev,              Soyuz 1991           Soyuz
Mir EO-8                          1990                                      175.08
                Musa Manarov                   TM-11 10:04:13       TM-11
                                  08:13:32 UTC
                              December 2,
Mir           Toyohiro                     Soyuz 10, 1990           Soyuz
                              1990                                            7.91
Kosmoreporter Akiyama - Japan              TM-11 06:08:12           TM-10
                              08:13:32 UTC
                                                      March 25,
                                   May 18, 1991 Soyuz 1992          Soyuz
Mir LD-3        Sergei Krikalev                                             311.83
                                   12:50:28 UTC TM-12 08:51:22      TM-13
                                                   May 26,
                Helen Sharman - May 18, 1991 Soyuz 1991             Soyuz
Mir Juno                                                                      7.88
                United Kingdom 12:50:28 UTC TM-12 10:04:13          TM-11
                                                      October 10,
                Anatoly            May 18, 1991 Soyuz 1991        Soyuz
Mir EO-9                                                                    144.64
                Artsebarsky        12:50:28 UTC TM-12 04:12:18    TM-12
                                                      March 25,
                                   October 2,
                Alexander A.                    Soyuz 1992          Soyuz
Mir EO-10                          1991                                     175.12
                Volkov                          TM-13 08:51:22      TM-13
                                   05:59:38 UTC
                Toktar Aubakirov                    October 10,
                                 October 2,
                - Kazakhstan                  Soyuz 1991        Soyuz
Mir Austromir                    1991                                         7.93
                Franz Viehböck -              TM-13 04:12:18    TM-12
                                 05:59:38 UTC
                Austria                             UTC
                                                    August 10,
                Alexander        March 17,
                                              Soyuz 1992            Soyuz
Mir EO-11       Viktorenko,      1992                                       145.59
                                              TM-14 01:05:02        TM-14
                Alexander Kaleri 10:54:30 UTC
                                                   March 25,
                                March 17,
                Klaus-Dietrich               Soyuz 1992             Soyuz
Mir 92                          1992                                          7.91
                Flade - Germany              TM-14 08:51:22         TM-13
                                10:54:30 UTC
                                                       August 10,
                Michel Tognini -   July 27, 1992 Soyuz 1992         Soyuz
Mir Antares                                                                  13.79
                France             06:08:42 UTC TM-15 01:05:02      TM-14
                                                         February 1,
                                     July 27, 1992 Soyuz 1993        Soyuz
Mir EO-12        Solovyev,                                                    188.90
                                     06:08:42 UTC TM-15 03:49:57     TM-15
                 Sergei Avdeyev
                 Gennadi                                July 22,
                                     January 24,
                 Manakov,                         Soyuz 1993          Soyuz
Mir EO-13                            1993                                     179.03
                 Alexander                        TM-16 06:41:50      TM-16
                                     05:58:05 UTC
                 Poleshchuk                             UTC
                                                        January 14,
                 Vasili Tsibliyev,
                                     July 1, 1993 Soyuz 1994        Soyuz
Mir EO-14        Aleksandr                                                    196.74
                                     14:32:58 UTC TM-17 08:18:20    TM-17
                                                        July 22,
                                     July 1, 1993 Soyuz 1993          Soyuz
Mir Altair       Haigneré -                                                    20.67
                                     14:32:58 UTC TM-17 06:41:50      TM-16
                                                        March 22,
                                     January 8,
                                                  Soyuz 1995          Soyuz
Mir LD-4         Valeri Polyakov     1994                                     437.75
                                                  TM-18 04:04:05      TM-20
                                     10:05:34 UTC
                                   January 8,         July 9, 1994
                 Viktor Afanasyev,              Soyuz              Soyuz
Mir EO-15                          1994               10:32:35                182.02
                 Yury Usachev                   TM-18              TM-18
                                   10:05:34 UTC       UTC
                 Yuri                                   November
                 Malenchenko,        July 1, 1994 Soyuz 4, 1994       Soyuz
Mir EO-16                                                                     125.95
                 Talgat              12:24:50 UTC TM-19 11:18:26      TM-19
                 Musabayev                              UTC
                                     October 3,
                 Ulf Merbold -                    Soyuz 4, 1994       Soyuz
Mir Euromir 94                       1994                                      31.52
                 Germany                          TM-20 11:18:26      TM-19
                                     22:42:30 UTC
                 Alexander                              March 22,
                                     October 3,
                 Viktorenko,                      Soyuz 1995          Soyuz
Mir EO-17                            1994                                     169.22
                 Yelena                           TM-20 04:04:05      TM-20
                                     22:42:30 UTC
                 Kondakova                              UTC
                                March 14,          July 7, 1995
                 Gennady                     Soyuz              STS-
Mir EO-18                       1995               14:55:28                   115.36
                 Strekalov,                  TM-21              71
                                06:11:34 UTC       UTC
                 Norman Thagard
                 - U.S.A.
                                     June 27, 1995 STS-   11, 1995    Soyuz
Mir EO-19        Solovyev,                                                     75.47
                                     19:32:19 UTC 71      06:52:40    TM-21
                 Nikolai Budarin
Mir EO-20 -      Yuri Gidzenko,      September 3, Soyuz February      Soyuz
Euromir 95       Sergei Avdeyev,     1995         TM-22 29, 1996      TM-22
              Thomas Reiter -     09:00:23 UTC          10:42:08
              Germany                                   UTC
                                  February 21,
              Yuri Onufrienko,                 Soyuz 2, 1996         Soyuz
Mir EO-21                         1996                                       193.80
              Yury Usachev                     TM-23 07:41:40        TM-23
                                  12:34:05 UTC
                                  March 22,
              Shannon W.                       STS-     26, 1996     STS-
Mir NASA-1                        1996                                       188.17
              Lucid - U.S.A.                   76       12:13:20     79
                                  08:13:04 UTC
                                                     March 2,
                                  August 17,
              Valery Korzun,                   Soyuz 1997            Soyuz
Mir EO-22                         1996                                       196.73
              Alexandr Kaleri                  TM-24 06:44:16        TM-24
                                  13:18:03 UTC
                               August 17,
              Claudie Haigneré              Soyuz 2, 1996            Soyuz
Mir Cassiopée                  1996                                           15.77
              - France                      TM-24 07:41:40           TM-23
                               13:18:03 UTC
                                                        January 22,
              John E. Blaha -                  STS-     1997        STS-
Mir NASA-2                        16, 1996                                   128.23
              U.S.A.                           79       14:23:51    81
                                  08:54:49 UTC
                                                        May 24,
                                January 12,
              Jerry M. Linenger              STS-       1997         STS-
Mir NASA-3                      1997                                         132.17
              - U.S.A.                       81         13:27:44     84
                                09:27:23 UTC
                                                     August 14,
              Vasili Tsibliyev,   February 10,
                                               Soyuz 1997            Soyuz
Mir EO-23     Aleksandr           1997                                       184.92
                                               TM-25 12:17:10        TM-25
              Lazutkin            14:09:30 UTC
                                                  March 2,
                               February 10,
              Reinhold Ewald -              Soyuz 1997               Soyuz
Mir 97                         1997                                           19.69
              Germany                       TM-25 06:44:16           TM-24
                               14:09:30 UTC
                                                        October 6,
              C. Michael Foale May 15, 1997 STS-        1997         STS-
Mir NASA-4                                                                   144.57
              - U.S.A.         09:07:48 UTC 84          21:55:00     86
              Anatoly          August 5,
                                            Soyuz 19, 1998           Soyuz
Mir EO-24     Solovyev,        1997                                          197.73
                                            TM-26 09:10:30           TM-26
              Pavel Vinogradov 15:35:54 UTC
                                                        January 31,
              David A. Wolf -                  STS-     1998        STS-
Mir NASA-5                        26, 1997                                   127.83
              U.S.A.                           86       22:36:00    89
                                  02:34:19 UTC
Mir NASA-6    Andrew S. W.        January 23,    STS-   June 12,     STS-    140.63
               Thomas - U.S.A. 1998         89        1998        91
                               01:48:15 UTC           18:00:17
                                                     August 25,
               Talgat             January 29,
                                               Soyuz 1998         Soyuz
Mir EO-25      Musabayev,         1998                                    207.53
                                               TM-27 05:24:44     TM-27
               Nikolai Budarin    16:33:42 UTC
                                 January 29,
               Léopold Eyharts -              Soyuz 19, 1998      Soyuz
Mir Pégase                       1998                                      20.69
               France                         TM-27 09:10:30      TM-26
                                 16:33:42 UTC
                                  August 13,
               Gennady                         Soyuz 28, 1999     Soyuz
Mir EO-26                         1998                                    198.69
               Padalka                         TM-28 02:14:30     TM-28
                                  09:43:11 UTC
                                                     August 28,
                                  August 13,
                                               Soyuz 1999         Soyuz
Mir EO-26/27   Sergei Avdeyev     1998                                    379.62
                                               TM-28 00:34:20     TM-29
                                  09:43:11 UTC
                                                     August 25,
                                  August 13,
                                               Soyuz 1999         Soyuz
Mir EP-4       Yuri Baturin       1998                                     11.82
                                               TM-28 05:24:44     TM-27
                                  09:43:11 UTC
                                  February 20,
               Ivan Bella -                    Soyuz 28, 1999     Soyuz
Mir Stefanik                      1999                                      7.91
               Slovakia                        TM-29 02:14:30     TM-28
                                  04:18:01 UTC
               Viktor Afanasyev,                    August 28,
                                 February 20,
Mir EO-27 -    Jean-Pierre                    Soyuz 1999          Soyuz
                                 1999                                     188.85
Mir Perseus    Haigneré -                     TM-29 00:34:20      TM-29
                                 04:18:01 UTC
               France                               UTC
                                                      June 16,
               Sergei Zalyotin,   April 4, 2000 Soyuz 2000        Soyuz
Mir EO-28                                                                  72.82
               Alexandr Kaleri    05:01:29UTC TM-30 00:43:45      TM-30
Both the United States and Russia are subject to all major international treaties and agreements that
require using space for peaceful purposes only. It is in the interests of all humankind to ensure that
the research and usage of outer space, including the moon and other celestial objects, pursues
peaceful goals so that all may benefit.

So far the space sphere is free from weaponry, as opposed to the land, sea and air spheres, which
have all served as theaters of war. It is indeed important to preserve space from further
Space holds great potential for future military uses. Direct deployment of weapons in space would
allow for the targeting of objects both on the earth and in space and for the use of conventional and
nuclear munitions, lasers, electromagnetic pulses and other forms of directed energy. These can all
be considered to be strategic-class uses due to their ability to destroy strategic global information
Over the past 50 years, humans have made significant strides in space exploration. What rises above
the specific details of these accomplishments, however, is the worldwide effort and cooperation that
made them possible.
We believe that the growing spirit of collaboration, linked to the growing number of nations and
organizations involved in space and the increasing scope of global space activity, will provide the
framework required for even greater accomplishments.
VIII. Abbreviations
NASA- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
HST- Hubble Space Telescope
ESA- European Space Agency
ISS- International Space Station
DFH- Dong Fang Hong
FSW- Fanhui Shi Weixing
FY- Feng Yun
DQ- Da Qi
SJ- Shi Jian
JSSW- Ji Shu Shiyan Weixing
ZY- Zi Yuan
FB- Feng Bao
CZ- Chang Zheng (Long March)
PLA- People’s Liberation Army
RKA- Russian Space Agency??
JAXA- Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
ICBM- Intercontinental ballistic missile
RMS- Remote Manipulator System
NASDA- National Aeronautics and Space Development Agency
EOSAT- Earth Observation Satellite
ISRO- The Indian Space Research Organization
SLV- Satellite Launch Vehicle
ASLV- Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle
CAST- Center for Applied Special Technology
CAT- Computer-aided tomography
MRI- magnetic resonance imaging
CCD-charged coupled device
TACS- Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System
LACE- Liquid Air Cooled Engine
CIA- Central Intelligence Agency
IACG- Inter-Agency Consultative Group
COPUOS- Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
CBM- confidence-building measure
UNIDIR- United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
CD- Conference on Disarmament
PAROS- the prevention of an arms race in outer space
WMD- Weapons of mass destruction
NMD- National Missile Defense
ABM- Anti-Ballistic Missile
GBIs- Ground Based Interceptors
BMC3- Battle Management, Command, Control, and Communications
BMC2- Battle Management, Command, and Control
IFICS- In-Flight Interceptor Communications System
XBRs- X-Band Radars
UEWR- Upgraded Early Warning Radar
SBIRS- Space-Based Infrared System
CRD- Capstone Requirements Document
JPO- Joint Project Office
IFT- Integrated Flight Tests
MSLS- Multi-Service Launch System
EKV- Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle
PLV- Payload Launch Vehicle
IMU- inertial measurement unit
DoD- Department of Defense
BUR- Bottom-Up Review
FSU- former Soviet Union
PRC- Peoples Republic of China
EWR- Early Warning Radar
ACAT- Acquisition Category
GBR- Ground Based Radar
UMDC- United Missile Defense Company
BMDO- Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
LSI- Lead System Integration
TVM- Track-Via-Missile
GEM- Guidance Enhanced Missile
FMS- Foreign Military Sales
ECCM- Electronic Counter-Ccountermeasures
IX. Sources
                                  Web sites
 1. Apollo-Soyuz Test Project:


 3. TREATIES.htm

 5. Cooperation in the space race:

 6. Ethical atheist:

 7. FAS:

 8. Fox News:

 9. Global

 10. Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies. “Preventing the
     Weaponization of Space”:

 11. Moscow defense brief:

 12. NASA:
13. Newspaper Online:

14. RIA Novosti

15. Russian space agency:

Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
17. htpp://www.nasmsiedu/exhibition/gal114/sec500/sec560.htm


27. UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space:

28. US Air Force, Counter Space Operations (AFDD 2-2.1), 2.8.04:


36. Graham John F.,Photos courtesy NASA 1995

37. Powell's Books - Star Crossed Orbits Inside the Us Russia by James Oberg:
                       Journals and periodical
38. People’s Daily on Line. Last updated at : (Beijing Time) Friday, October 10,
    2003 China not to take part in any form of space arms race:

39. Defense News 10.1.05

                          Official documents
40. 12/10/2005 General Assembly GA/DIS/3302 Department of Public Information
    • News and Media Division • New York Sixtieth General Assembly First
    Committee 10th Meeting (PM)

41. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972):

42. BULLETEN 20. Bulletin 20 - Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space

43. CD 28.3.2002

44. Convention on the Registration of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space

45. Disarmament Documentation: Anniversary of Outer Space Treaty:

46. GA 26.9.01

47. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987):

48. Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963):

49. Press release. 07.08.03
     China accepts “Five Ambassadors” proposal on prevention of an arms race
in outer        space as amended Conference on Disarmament Hears
Statements by Indonesia, Italy, Ukraine, China, Russian Federation, and the
President of the Conference

50. Report of the Secretary-General-. on Environment and Development, Rio de
    Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.93.I.8 and
   corrigenda), vol. I: Resolutions Adopted by the Conference, resolution 1,
   annex II.

51. State government. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in
    the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other
    Celestial Bodies. www.stategov/t/ac/trt/5181/htm#treaty

52. Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) I Interim Agreement (1972):

53. Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) I (1991):

54. The Moon Treaty (1979):

55. The Outer Space Treaty (1967):

56. Conference report “Safeguarding Space Security”:

57. CONFERENCE REPORT ”Safeguarding Space Security: Prevention of an
    Arms Race in Outer Space” Geneva 21-22 March 2005

58. Disarmament Documentation: Anniversary of Outer Space Treaty

59. SPACE SECURITY 2003 A Research Report Prepared for the International
    Security Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Ottawa, Canada, March
    2004. p.34.

60. IDDS correspondence with Libby Green, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

62. Mental
63. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
64. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
65. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
66. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
67. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
68. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
69. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
70. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
71. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
72. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
73. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
74. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:

75. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:

                                                                         Back to:
                                                           Space Programs
                                                     US-Soviet Competition
                                                  Books: conflicts in space
                                                  Treaties and Agreements
                                   Non-treaty approaches to space security

Shared By:
tongxiamy tongxiamy http://