Houston Space Policy Summit — Keynote Address

Houston Space Policy Summit — Keynote Address

Norman P. Neureiter, Science and Technology Adviser to the
Secretary of State Keynote address to Space Policy Summit
Houston, Texas October 12, 2002

It s a great pleasure
to be here again in Houston and visiting this great
university. The Baker Institute, Lockheed Martin, and AIAA
are to be commended for convening this Forum of
international space leaders. I hope that the discussions
at this Summit and the World Space Congress will help move
all of you closer to a shared global vision of future
space exploration and utilization.

This is a nostalgic
visit for me. I used to be an organic chemist, and I began
my research career at the Humble Oil Refinery in Baytown, 30
miles from here down the ship channel. At night I was
teaching German at the University of Houston — just down
the road. But after Sputnik went up and the U.S. science
community suddenly got interested in Soviet science, I was
asked by the Physics Department to start teaching Russian
as well. Sputnik stirred up lots of things in the U.S.,
including the creation of NASA.

I still remember that
while I was living in Baytown, Albert Thomas, our local
Representative on the Appropriations Committee in the
Congress and Senator Lyndon Johnson used their collective
positions and powers of persuasion to ensure that NASA s
Manned Space Flight Center was built in Clear Lake, which I
must tell you did not look like much at the time.

Incredibly, it was only 12 years later that I was working in
the Nixon White House Science Office and was invited to
escort several European Science Ministers in a NASA
aircraft to see the launch of Apollo 11. It was
unforgettable — not just to see it, but also to hear and
feel the air and earth pulsate as that huge Saturn 5
booster accelerated into the breaking dawn of a Cape
Canaveral morning. We then flew here to Houston and in the
flight control center listened to those three brave space
pioneers on their historic journey to the Moon. And when
the LEM landed and Neil Armstrong took that “one small
step for man and one giant leap for mankind,” I was back in
Washington, watching television with my children — all of
us curious to see if he was about to step onto a surface
of green cheese.

I also learned to fly near here, with
lessons at a little airport just across the ship channel
from Baytown. However, when the owner of the small Cessna
that I wanted to buy flew it into a telephone wire,
killing himself and wrecking the plane, that was the end
of my career as a pilot. I lacked the “Right Stuff.” But
that is how I became a bureaucrat and am standing here today
hoping to say something useful about U.S. space policy.

Let me just say a word about my present position at the
State Department. This position was first created 2 years
ago to focus on expanding the capacity of State to deal
with the many foreign policy issues that involve
considerations of science, technology, or health. That
means I work at the somewhat fuzzy interface of science
and technology with foreign policy. But it also lets me
contribute directly to developing mutually beneficial
scientific and technical cooperation with other countries
and thereby strengthen our overall relations with them. I
believe strongly in the value of these relationships and
find space to be the perfect arena for such
cooperation.

It is sometimes useful to look at history
to anchor oneself in the present. NASA was created in
1958. Based on a recommendation of President Eisenhower s
Science Advisory Committee, it was established as a purely
civilian space agency. The legislation also called for
cooperation with other nations and groups of nations in
space activities, and in the peaceful applications of the
results.

That policy of peaceful cooperation in outer
space endures to the present day, and has enjoyed a rich
history of major contributions to science, and a
remarkable record of joint international undertakings of
great daring, complexity, and shared responsibilities —
both technical and financial. It is an undeniable fact as
we enter the 21st century that space-based systems have
become crucial to economic growth, protection of the
environment, scientific inquiry, and global security.

Now I was asked to talk today about U.S. space policy. This
is a big subject, with pieces to be found in hundreds —
maybe thousands — of laws, regulations, and statements.
For example, Dr. John Logsdon s excellent history of the
U.S. civil space program, called Exploring the Unknown,
consists of five volumes totaling more than 3,000 pages
and is still a work in progress.

What I will try to do
is to focus on several aspects of our policies of
particular relevance to this international audience. Just as
was directed in the original legislation, international
cooperation continues to be one of the hallmarks of U.S.
space policy. Today, most of the major scientific missions
of NASA and NOAA are carried out in collaboration with at
least one other country s space agency — often with
several. Let me mention just two outstanding examples of
international cooperation — CEOS and COSPAS-SARSAT.

CEOS is the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites. It is
an informal but very active mechanism that enables space
agencies around the world to coordinate separate missions
to study and monitor global phenomena. Along with other
benefits, it helps space agencies avoid carrying out
duplicative earth observation missions.

COSPAS-SARSAT
is a network of satellites and emergency beacons that
assists search-and-rescue operations at sea and in remote
corners of the world. Some 37 nations participate. Since
1982, at least 13,000 lives have been saved using
COSPAS-SARSAT. We will have a 20th birthday party for this
remarkable program at the Department of State next
week.

Also in the commercial sector the number and
complexity of joint ventures across national boundaries is
growing rapidly. One fascinating example of this is Sea
Launch, the innovative American-Norwegian-Ukrainian-Russian
commercial partnership that has successfully launched
several satellites from a converted oil platform towed
from Long Beach, California, to the middle of the Pacific
Ocean.

The success of CEOS, COSPAS-SARSAT, and Sea
Launch, three very different forms of international
cooperation, reinforces my belief that the founding fathers
of the U.S. space program knew what they were doing. The
potential for nations to work together in exploring the
heavens and in using space for the betterment of mankind
is enormous. I hope that all of you “space policymakers,”
here will continue to push the envelope to realize the
full potential of this great enterprise.

But we must
be realistic. Space cooperation can be hard work. Each
country has to meld its own policy objectives and program
requirements with those of the partners. This takes time
and willingness to compromise. But I trust you agree that
it is well worth it — at least most of the time.

The
15-nation International Space Station project shows that
even the largest, most complex space programs are possible
on a cooperative basis. As of next month, the ISS will
have been permanently inhabited for 2 years. Isn t that
amazing? But, I don t want to gloss over the difficulties.
Each of the partners has had difficulties with its own
portion of the program at one time or another. You are all
aware that NASA and its counterpart space agencies are
currently pursuing an agreed action plan to conduct an
effective program that fully comprehends cost
accountability, high priority science, and the engineering
challenges.

I am convinced that uniting the world s
major space powers in this monumental project for peaceful
purposes will pay long-term dividends for all involved.
Managerial expertise will be enhanced by executing this huge
international program. Exciting science will be done in
the Station s microgravity labs. New technologies will
emerge from building a space facility of this size and
complexity. And the use of robotics will be extended to
previously unimaginable limits.

Another core principle
of U.S. space policy is that our civil space activities
should enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system, and
the universe — and that this knowledge should be shared
for the benefit of all humankind. The universal acceptance
of this view is reflected in the Outer Space Treaty and
underpins the majority of present civilian space
missions.

NASA Administrator Sean O Keefe reflected this
principle when he said recently: “NASA s new vision for
the future is: To improve life here. To extend life to
there. To find life beyond.” NASA is focused on serving the
needs of humankind.

Let s take the example of remote
sensing. Here the U.S. has tried to lead the way, and will
continue to do so, by making available data from its earth
observation satellites on a non-discriminatory basis and at
reasonable cost. Most other spacefaring nations do the
same. The U.S. also makes available to the world, free of
direct user fees, the civil signals from its constellation
of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites.

We have
recently had a very exciting activity that combines earth
observation data with GPS and other tools. This is
“Geographic Information for Sustainable Development”
(GISD). It is a U.S.-initiated, public-private partnership
that was showcased in August at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. GISD is a broad
international effort that combines decades of remote
sensing imagery with GPS positioning information, a variety
of high-quality geospatial data streams, and
state-of-the-art software to address sustainability
issues, such as food security, natural disaster mitigation,
and ecosystem management. For instance, African
researchers at GISD study sites can receive elevation data
from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) that is
ten-fold higher in resolution than earlier data streams.
While the initial focus is on Africa, we want to extend
GISD to other developing regions. We think that it can be
a big player as the world development community moves into
the process we like to call “Beyond Johannesburg”. There s
much more on the web about GISD at
www.opengis.org/gisd.

This is only one of hundreds of
GPS applications in use around the world, and I do think
this astonishing growth comes in large degree from the U.S.
policy of “no-fee, open availability.” We intend to
maintain this policy. Russia has also gone this route,
making signals from its GLONASS navigation satellites freely
available. We hope that other countries with plans for
navigation satellite systems will also see the wisdom of
this approach.

You all know that Europe has decided to
build a global navigation satellite system called Galileo.
We believe it will be to everyone s benefit if Galileo is
developed in such a way as to be compatible and
interoperable with GPS. There are some difficult issues
that must be resolved to achieve this joint compatibility
and interoperability, but I believe there will be manifest
benefits to users worldwide from doing so.

We are also
continuing our discussions with the European Union on some
difficult trade-related issues and policy issues related to
satellite navigation. For example, we hope that Europe
will not opt to use regulations or system-driven standards
to mandate the use of Galileo at the expense of GPS
manufacturers, service providers, and users. Our view is
that users around the world should be free to choose which
system, or combination of systems, best meets their needs.
If our talks with Europe go well, the end result, we
believe, will be better, more reliable service for users
worldwide.

Another fundamental tenet of U.S. space
policy since the early 1980s has been to encourage private
sector use of space. We have always recognized that a
strong U.S. aerospace industry is crucial to our national
security and economic wellbeing.

Commercialization of
space activities began with communications satellites and
then began to spread to other sectors. Today the global
market for communications satellite services and products
has achieved a genuine level of maturity and “staying
power,” marked by vigorous competition and a wide range of
service providers. These services have been integrated into
our daily lives, including even the privatization of
previously intergovernmental satellite organizations such
as INTELSAT, INMARSAT, and Eutelsat.

Nonetheless, it is
now apparent that the annual demand for communications
satellites has declined since the market peak in the late
1990s, and there is justifiable concern about the current
over-capacity for commercial satellite manufacturing.
Still, new and promising satellite services are emerging,
such as digital satellite radio and, ultimately, satellite
broadband services. We believe that satellite services
will continue to play a very important role in global
telecom connectivity, particularly in light of their unique
transmission advantages.

Certainly there is also an
emerging commercial remote sensing industry, both in the
U.S. and other countries. It is also of interest to follow
the tentative steps being taken in other areas such as
space tourism, space mining, and space power.

For the
Department of State, space commercialization is exciting,
but it also poses challenges with regard to the
international legal regime for space activities. In the
late 1960s and early 1970s, the United Nations Committee on
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space developed the Outer Space
Treaty and three related UN conventions, which serve as
the bedrock of international space law. This was an
example of multilateral diplomacy at its best; the
international rules that were created afford a measure of
transparency and accountability for space activities,
without constraining national programs. But this body of law
was developed during an era when nearly all space activities
were carried out by governments. Perhaps it is time to
begin thinking about whether it will be adequate for the
coming era of space commercialization.

It seems clear
that almost nothing would have a more positive impact on the
health of the commercial space sector than a two- or
three-fold reduction in the cost of access to space. There
is also broad agreement that the U.S. must have “assured
access” to space for critical civil and national security
missions. However, there are differing views on how best to
accomplish these space transportation objectives. As a
result the U.S. Government has recently begun a review of
U.S. space transportation policy to answer the question:
where do we want to be in 15-20 years with respect to space
transportation?

Let me briefly expand on this topic. We
need to change the way we think about getting from here to
there when we think about space transportation. I don t
just mean a voyage to Mars. I am also talking about how we
go from Earth to space; how we re-supply the Space
Station; and how we place new satellites in Earth orbit
and in positions where they can serve as sentinels around
our variable Sun to warn us of adverse space weather.

Practical human space flight to Mars or into deep space will
require a much better propulsion technology. We will need
a revolution in space propulsion. If we can make that
transition, Mars could be in reach, and maybe even
interplanetary travel beyond Mars.

NASA has recently
announced an important technology initiative to explore the
use of nuclear power generation and other advanced
propulsion systems for solar system exploration. Drawing
on the Energy Department s reactor design experience and
earlier NASA research, the goal is to develop systems that
can increase travel speeds by a factor of three to the
outer planets. That s an exciting prospect.

So far I
have talked about U.S. civil and commercial space policy
goals that are not very different from those of other
spacefaring nations. But I must also say something about
national security and space.

It is clear that the U.S.
is committed to the peaceful exploration and use of outer
space by all nations. This is reflected in our adherence to
the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. But the peaceful exploration
and use of space obviously does not rule out activities in
pursuit of national security goals. In fact, the law that
established NASA as a civilian agency also gave
responsibility for national security space activities to
the Department of Defense.

Furthermore, Article 51 of
the UN charter makes it clear that all member States have
the inherent right of individual and collective
self-defense. The global responsibilities of the United
States and the new threats facing us in today s world
require that that right be exercised both on the Earth and
above it. The security and wellbeing of the United States
and its allies depend on the ability to operate in space.
And we are not alone in having military space programs.
Other nations do so as well to serve their security
needs.

Free access to space and its use by spacefaring
nations are central to the preservation of peace and the
protection of civil, commercial, and security interests.
For the United States, these interests include improving our
ability to support military operations worldwide; to
monitor and respond to military threats; and to monitor
arms control and nonproliferation agreements.

In terms
of policy, the United States sees no need for, and opposes
negotiation of, new outer space arms control agreements in
the UN Committee on Disarmament or elsewhere. A number of
standing agreements already sufficiently regulate military
activities in outer space. The Limited Test Ban Treaty of
1963 prohibits parties from conducting nuclear weapon test
explosions or other nuclear explosions in outer space. The
Outer Space Treaty, to which the United States remains
firmly committed, puts celestial bodies off limits to all
nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and
prohibits States Parties from placing in orbit or
stationing such weapons in outer space — a far-reaching
nonproliferation measure in itself. It also provides that
celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful
purposes and prohibits their use for military
establishments or maneuvers, or for testing any type of
weapons. In addition, the Outer Space Treaty clearly
establishes that States Parties retain jurisdiction and
control over objects they have launched into outer space,
and have international responsibility for national objects
in outer space, including whatever damage the launched
item may cause.

In sum, there already exists an
extensive and comprehensive system for promoting peaceful
uses of outer space and for providing a framework for
legitimate national security applications.

There will
probably always be some dynamic tension between our national
security goals on the one hand and our goals for
international scientific cooperation and/or commercial
activities on the other hand. This may be unavoidable. But
since the consummate tragedy of 9/11 the situation has
become much more complicated.

That day has changed
many things in the United States. In addition to the
global war on terrorism, there is an intense focus on
homeland security, on border-crossing and visa policies,
and on non-proliferation of anything related to weapons of
mass destruction and their delivery — including protection
of key technologies. And there are now new laws, new
regulations, and new procedures that apply in each of
these areas.

I mentioned earlier the space
transportation policy review that is currently underway.
The Administration is also updating U.S. commercial remote
sensing policy to keep pace with this rapidly evolving
sector. We recognize that the continued development and
advancement of U.S. commercial remote sensing capabilities
serves a number of U.S. interests. But, at the same time, we
have an obvious desire to prevent our adversaries from
gaining access to the highest quality data and imagery. We
hope the current policy review will result in an outcome
that strikes the right balance, but this is very
challenging, because the technical capabilities of
potential commercial imagery vendors are rapidly improving
both in the United States and abroad.

We are also
working hard to improve the processing of export licenses
that provide protection for sensitive technology. But
export licenses will continue to be required for space
technologies that are judged to be sensitive based on
objective evaluation. The licensing process is seen as
essential to ensure responsible trade in these
technologies. And there will be certain critical
technologies that will remain fully protected.

Another
area presently causing difficulties — even affecting today
s meeting — are new visa regulations resulting from
legislation seeking better controls on entry into the
United States. Our consular people at State are working hard
to make the new systems function effectively, but
unfortunately, there may well continue to be delays and
inconvenience for our friends from procedures designed to
detect those who should not be allowed to enter. It is not
unlike the intense special screening I seem to get on
every domestic flight despite my State Department photo
ID.

There is also a certain irony in all of this new
emphasis on restrictions and controls. One great strength
of our nation derives from the diversity and the openness
of American society. To the extent that we fail on a timely
basis to issue visas for foreign officials to participate
in our conferences or for international students to attend
our universities, or to the extent that we constrain our
companies from doing business with international partners,
we risk undermining this very fundamental principle of our
society. There are a lot of us in Government working hard
today to find the right balance between security and
openness.

But I must tell you it is a particular
challenge in the area of scientific exchanges, since the
perverted use of science today can have such devastating
consequences. But science also provides the best tools for
countering those who would use science against us. Finding
the right balance is essential.

In the space field we
should have guidelines that are easily understood and
readily implemented by both U.S. and international
companies, as well as by universities involved in space
programs. We need to find rational approaches, which will
balance our security needs with our commercial and
scientific objectives. We need to ensure that our
partnerships build bridges, not walls. But, achieving this
will remain a continuing challenge for the bureaucracy.

Yet it seems obvious that the great space endeavors of this
century will be bold, vastly complex, and very expensive
— projects that a single nation will be unwilling or
unable to do alone. International cooperation remains a
categorical imperative and we must keep these channels open.
That is why I am so pleased that the sponsors have
convened this forum, where you can freely discuss these
important issues.

Let me close with an anecdote. In 1965
I was a scientific attache in the U. S. Embassy in
Germany. I still recall the multiple visits of James Webb,
the Administrator of NASA at the time. He was a super
salesman for space, but also a superb manager. The Germans
were still debating the extent to which they should move
ahead with a space program. It was Jim Webb s vision of the
ultimate benefits that would derive from a space program and
from international cooperation on a global basis that I
felt were a key part of the final German decision to go
forward.

We have moved well beyond Jim Webb s vision of
1965. And it is the people in this room and your
colleagues around the world that must now extend the
international vision for space into the new and very complex
environment of the 21st century. I wish you Godspeed on
this splendid mission.

[End]

Released on October
22, 2002