Spacelift Washington: World Space Congress – a Global Message to the US (Part 1)

The world came to Houston last week, in a sense, to attend the second World Space Congress, an event held only once every ten years. Some 4,500 paid attendees (as we were officially told) jammed the concurrent sessions held in the cavernous George Brown Convention Center to exchange data on the status of space programs in every conceivable arena, from satellite communications to human spaceflight; from launch services to environmental mitigation.

If the truth be told, had there been significantly more people there, say a few thousand more (still much less than the 13,000 advertised), there would literally been no more space available – no pun intended.

The event was, by any reasonable measurement, a success. Most of the logistics ran smoothly, things were very well organized, and the quality of the sampling of the sessions, which this writer attended, were of high quality.

But the true value of this confab, it would seem, was what went on outside of the formal talks. The conversations – and in some rare cases actual dialog – with international spacers of every stripe – made the week especially valuable to U.S. space participants.

Here we heard the true status of programs underway in Europe, South America, the far and mid-east, and elsewhere. For some reason, though, Visas were either denied or unavailable to many Chinese and Russian registrants, which meant that not only were they absent, but in many cases so were their papers, which had an afternoon Friday October 18th cut-off for inclusion in the proceedings. Right up to the end, China’s papers on their space policies and Long March upgrades were missing.

But the subtext of many of my conversations had an ominous ring. Below the usual upbeat messages that such meetings engender was what we in the U.S. should take as a not-so-subtle warning.

The message?

A mix of anger and disappointment with U.S. space policy. Most of this we know already.

Some we should quietly ponder in the year ahead, less we find ourselves with even greater competition on the space frontier in the future.

The first concern I heard almost as a constant refrain was the issue of export controls.

Like a stranglehold on the throat of U.S. space commerce, the current export control regime has done more to hurt the U.S. space industry than any technological issue or failure in the past half-decade. Not only the specifics of the restrictive requirements, but the atmosphere that some across the waters perceive. They hear a message in the combined events of this year that some think suggest that we in the U.S. value their participation less, and in some cases could care less.

Next came, as one might imagine, the anger over the current status of the ISS. The wailing over crew size actually might have obscured a quiet message from Sean O’Keefe. The message being that NASA’s current focus is to just arrive at core complete first, and then address what shape or size the station might be to sustain its science missions.

Answers could be an Extended Duration Orbiter. There could be other tools as well. NASA’s message seems to be “we’ll get there – a full crew size – by some means, and it might just be means that aren’t yet obvious, so stay tuned.”

Speaking of O’Keefe, his was clearly the shadow most sought to fall under. His likeness graced every NASA exhibit, with a welcoming message on Monday of the conference worthy of any of his predecessors. NASA’s massive presence in the WSC exhibit hall also dominated, from SLI to station module mock-ups and Space Shuttles everywhere else.

But the international angst over ISS might well have prevented some less-well connected foreign visitors to understanding what shifts were really underway.
Candid briefings on NExT gave visitors details of where O’Keefe may take the agency next. As such, in the midst of all of these exchanges, there was cause for hope for many seeking a new, revitalized exploration agenda.

The last concern heard was over the terminated X-38 crew return vehicle program. The Germans in particular seemed not only surprised but hurt by the cancellation, as if some had already started planning additional uses for their own copies of the reusable craft. The true subtext here, though, actually was competitiveness. The joint work between German firms and NASA on X-38 was seen clearly as a means for Europe to gain much desired experience in reusable space systems. Why desired? Because Europe hopes to build a reusable launch vehicle in the future. Not today, but not 20 years from now either. The X-38 was a stalking horse, a hostage for that intent.

Lastly, in this mixed atmosphere of camaraderie and concern, Lockheed Martin is to be congratulated for their first-ever Space Policy Summit. While it may not result in historic changes or new policy constructs, the opening of the dialog was an important step in getting people used to at least sharing their visions of space future. It took courage to start down this road, especially in this climate.

New technology in exhibits was also on display, from truly spectacular uses of flat panel video technology, to advanced rear projection systems that made thin sheets of glass into stereo movie theaters in ambient light. United Space Alliance even brought in a Space Shuttle Main Engine. Whatever their true feelings about the state of U.S.-international space relations, visitor after visitor stood in line to have themselves photographed with the engine, which after all began the path to reusability more than three decades ago.

So how will our space partners –or competitors- actually seek to evolve?

More on that in our future columns.

SPACELIFT WASHINGTON © 2002 by Frank Sietzen, Jr. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own, and are not associated with or affiliated with any other organization or group.