NONPROLIFERATION
IN OUTER SPACE

BENCHMARK II

Student Olga Kosykh

Teacher Viktoria Gladkova

Seversk Gymnasia

 

Seversk 2007

CONTENTS

 

1.   Introduction.

2.   Space programs.

3.   Treaties and agreements.

4.   Conclusion.

5.   Bibliography.

Introduction

The launch of Sputnik I in 1957 initiated space exploration and during several decades the USSR and USA were the only countries dominating in space since originally they were the only countries capable of launching space vehicles. But we consider the space race that existed between them was not of negative consequence only. On the one hand, it heightened international tension. However, it helped to move on scientific progress fast and develop scientific technologies. Major achievements made in space field were partially made due to the space race when both countries aspired to be the first in every possible sphere and not in space only.

Nowadays, it is difficult to find a single country in the world that does not depend, in one way or another, on services provided by space systems. In our daily lives we rely increasingly on satellites for such matters as television and radio reception, telephone communications and the Internet, military and civilian security, weather forecasting, air traffic control and ensuring the security of bank transactions.

Hence even if there are still only a small number of space powers—understood as countries capable of building and launching a spacecraft—the entire international community has a stake in the smooth operation of space systems. This is a practical reflection of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, Article 1 of which provides that the exploitation and use of outer space shall be the province of all mankind. /www.unidir.org/

Space programs

Soviet and Russian Space Programs

Soviet Launch Sites

Baikonur Cosmodrome

“In the mid-1950s, the Soviet military had to find a new test site for its secret rocket program. There was no such word as “cosmodrome” in Russian language that time. The most suitable word for the constructing object was “the experimental range”. When one of the builders asked Sergei Korolev about what was going to be there in the end, Korolev said:“A Stadium! The biggest stadium in the world!” /www.advantour.com/

Baikonur Cosmodrome

Baikonur Cosmodrome /www.advantour.com/

“At the time, cruise and ballistic missiles conceived in the country promised to fly not hundreds but thousands of kilometers. After considering four most desolate locations it could find, the government commission made a choice, which horrified even war-burned officers at the Soviet Ministry of Defense. The new test range designated NIIP-5 would be built at the Tyuratam junction on the right bank of the Syr Darya River in Kazakhstan.

The first military construction team, which landed at the Tyuratam junction in January 1955, found a building of the railway station and a village sheltering few dozen people. In the few months, however, this forgotten place was avalanched with the trains carrying construction workers, the materials and supplies for the future top-secret test site. Only two years later, after unending struggle with dust and heat in the summer and wind and cold in the winter, capricious soils and infectious diseases, thousands of workers have completed a monumental complex.” /www.russianspaceweb.com/

Plesetsk Cosmodrome

“Plesetsk Cosmodrome is a Russian spaceport, located in Arkhangelsk Oblast, about 800 km north of Moscow and south of Arkhangelsk.

Cyclone-3 rocket launching Meteor-3 satellite (Plesetsk, August 15, 1991)

Plesetsk /www.en.wikipedia.org/

It was originally developed by the Soviet Union as a launch site for intercontinental ballistic missiles. Construction started in 1957 and it was declared operational for R-7 rockets in December 1959. A new town for the support of the facility was named Mirny. By 1997, more than 1,500 launches to space had been made from the site, more than for any other launch facility, although the usage has declined significantly since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The existence of Plesetsk Cosmodrome was originally kept secret and the Soviet Union did not officially admit the existence of Plesetsk Cosmodrome until 1983.

Plesetsk is used especially for military satellites placed into high inclination and polar orbits since the range for falling debris is clear to the north which is largely uninhabited arctic and polar terrain. It is situated in a region of taiga, or flat terrain with boreal pine forests.” /www.en.wikipedia.org/

History of the Soviet and Russian Space Programs

Starting in the 1950s, the USSR vied with the United States for primacy in the conquest of space. The Soviet Union recorded many high-profile ‘firsts’: from the first satellite, Sputnik, launched in 1957, and Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space in 1961, to the first permanent orbiting station, Mir, deployed in 1986. Above and beyond prestige, the USSR was also in pursuit of certain military applications. /www.unidir.org/ Less than 20% of Soviet launches were for 'national prestige' purposes (civilian manned flights, scientific and planetary). /www.astronautix.com/

Following the START disarmament agreements, in 1993 and 1994, the former Soviet SS–12M and SS–25 missiles were converted into commercial rockets (Rokot and Start respectively). Soviet missile technologies retained many similarities with those developed for satellite launches. In the same way, the Proton rocket, initially a missile, has become a launcher in the process of its development. The Kosmos series of satellites carried out all the missions demanded by the Soviet authorities, civilian and military.

The collapse of the USSR in 1991 led to a number of problems for its space programs. The first stemmed from the fact that the former Soviet launch sites were dispersed among various republics. The Russian Federation retained the Plesetsk launch site and constructed a new site at Svobodny, but the Baikonur site is now in Kazakhstan. The second consequence was that the Russian space budget shrunk from US$6 billion in 1992 to an estimated US$1 billion in 2001. Consequently, the programs suffered a marked slowdown.

The true history of Soviet spaceflight is predominantly the story of Soviet military space. Manned or scientific space missions could often only be justified as part of larger military projects. Less than 20% of Soviet launches were for 'national prestige' purposes (civilian manned flights, scientific and planetary). /www.astronautix.com/

The 16 February 1961 decree 'On measures to improve military technology' laid the basis for institution of quality control by the military to improve the reliability of space systems. Prior to this the quality of space systems was assured primarily through the efforts of the Chief Designers - Korolev personally supervised shop work for the first Sputniks and cherry-picked the best components for the Vostok manned spacecraft.

But the poor reliability of first generation military systems, and the loss of the moon race to the Americans due to the unreliability of the systems, resulted in major reforms in the early 1970's. At the beginning of the 1970's Soviet launch vehicle reliability was 89.4% compared to 84.3% in the USA. During the 1970's, intensive work improved booster reliability to 92.4% in the USSR versus 91.5% in the USA. There were many reasons for failures: design defects, development problems, materials used, assembly, etc. All had to be tackled. However, technical politics blocked many improvements. The result was that by the 1980's the Soviets were putting even more emphasis on pre-flight ground qualification and development test than the Americans.

In the early 1960's Russian strategic nuclear forces on land, sea, and air were already in place. The military wished to integrate military space forces in a systematic manner as soon as possible. These requirements resulted in definition of an SKV - Space Military System. The SKV would exploit the global range of orbital systems; determine the precise location of mobile and fixed targets for strike by strategic forces, precisely hit such targets, and quickly and securely transmit targeting information.

Russian space historians variously refer to three or four generations of space systems, resulting in some confusion. The planning process resulted in a cycle where development of new space systems was authorized in one five year plan, followed by operational use in the next five year plan. This resulted in Soviet space systems falling into three generations before the fall of the Soviet Union. Prior to these three generations a few projects were begun on the initiative of the rocket and spacecraft Chief Designers, before the military fully accepted or understood the usefulness of space systems. /www.astronautix.com/

First Generation Soviet Space Systems (1960 to 1975)

A July 1960 declaration defined the military systems to be developed in 1966 to 1970. First generation satellites were very unreliable. One problem was unrealistic specifications, another a lack of proven space-worthy components. The first solution was redundant systems, and these were tried on an experimental basis in the Meteor, Strela, and Tsiklon satellites. Flight demonstrations proved use of better construction methods would allow guaranteed satellite lifetimes of two to three years. Meanwhile the operational situation reached a crisis point. The USA had faced the same problem, and developed a strong reliable component basis for spacecraft. This had increased individual American satellite lifetimes to 3 to 5 years and system operational lives to 5 to 7 years (through use of on-orbit reserve spacecraft). But in the Soviet Union, due to the urgency to deploy, there was no time to develop such a technical basis for first generation systems. Only in the 1970's were reliability problems solved through use of qualified standard components, standard means of documentation, and quality assurance.

While the reliability of first generation systems was poor, they still met the needs of the Rocket Forces and General Staff. Quick reaction (10 to 12 day) launch times were achieved, and the new systems allowed precise targeting of long range rockets and naval forces. The Korund space communications system provided reliable command and control of the strategic forces.

Military space operations began in 1961 with the 'Provisional Rocket-Engineering Auxiliary' VNIRS-61. This initially developed military operational plans for launch sites and command and control activities, including regularly scheduled maintenance operations. This first phase, which prepared the military to execute space operations and conduct trials of systems, was completed by 1965. The first military space operations plans were prepared for the Zenit reconnaissance satellite system in 1964 to 1965, and subsequently used by the General Staff in the operation of that system.

Military research programs of 1962 to 1964 code-named Shchit (space systems), Osnova (space equipment), and Ediniy KIK (ground systems) defined the first generation of Soviet operational space systems, deployed in 1966-1975. /www.astronautix.com/

National Prestige Programs

Although they represented only 20% of launches, national prestige projects (manned and planetary missions) represented 50% of the effort of the military, which was responsible for the launch facilities and operations. This was due to their scale and use of non-standard launch vehicles and spacecraft.

Manned Lunar Projects - The Soviet government waited until 1964 before deciding to take on the 1961 American moon race challenge. The secret Russian program failed to beat the Americans to a landing on the moon. There were three parallel projects.

Lunar probes: Babakin, at the Lavochkin bureau, had been assigned development of heavy unmanned probes to support manned lunar base construction. Ten of these Luna Ye-8 probes were launched from 1969 to 1974, and they successfully returned lunar soil to earth and roved the surface. The success of these probes allowed the Soviet Union to promulgate the myth that they had never been in the moon race.

Planetary probes: The 2MV probes were replaced first by the 3MV series. To match ambitious American plans for robot exploration of Mars in the 1970's, the four-times-heavier 4MV bus was introduced, requiring launch by a Proton rocket. This continued to be used for Soviet planetary probes, and some heavy scientific satellites (Granat, Astron, Prognoz), to the end of the century. Soviet probes to Venus were generally successful. None of the six probes sent to Mars returned any significant data.

Intercosmos and international programs - Launches of payloads developed by countries friendly to the Soviet Union aboard DS satellites from Yuzhnoye began in April 1967. Intercosmos-1, the first dedicated launch, came in October 1969. The last launch of the first generation of the series was in 1976. Launch of similar Soviet-French Oreol satellites, code named Arkad, were made in 1971 and 1973. The Soviet Union also assisted India in development of its Aryabhata satellite, launched by a Russian rocket in 1975. /www.astronautix.com/

Mature First Generation Soviet Space Systems (1970 to 1985)

A Defense Ministry directive of 6 November 1968 laid out the actions to be taken in the late 1960's and early 1970's for unit programming for military utilization (Plans Mars, Osnova, Orion). The objective was to integrate space forces into overall military planning, taking into account the most cost-effective use of resources. Methodical operations planning was completed in 1970 with Plans Prognoz and Sirius Phase I. Development of the first nine systems of the second generation was completed in 1974-1975 and flight trials were conducted in the second half of the 1970's. The second group of second generation systems were developed in the second half of the 1970's and deployed in the first half of the 1980's. From 1971-1976 14 new space systems entered military service, and 16 were in operation. /www.astronautix.com/

Second Generation Soviet Space Systems (1975 to 1985)

In April 1972 work began to draft a five year plan for satellites to be used in the 1985-1990 period. These included Plans Sirius Phase 2, Dal', Gamma, Zamysel, Fon, etc. The final result was two plans: "Program for Military Space Units for 1976 to 1985" and "Basis or Direction of Development of Space Units through 1990". After evaluation by the Ministry of Defense, these plans were approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Soviet Ministers on 27 February 1976. They included the definition of new research programs in the 1976-1980 period, operational effectiveness studies, organizational studies, and determination of optimal orbits for various satellite constellations. This February decree was a watershed which laid out the systems that would be designed and deployed until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. These plans embodied the response of the Soviet leadership to the technical debacles of the early 1970's - the loss of the moon race, the failure of the N1, the unreliability of first generation spacecraft. Development of the new space systems would use new research, quality assurance, and program management techniques. These would make maximum use of successful American 'best practices' and technology that had won the moon race.

Second generation systems were to use a new series of modular spacecraft buses and ultimately a new series of launch vehicles. Satellite constellations were grouped into integrated systems to achieve specific military purposes. The satellites were normally modular designs developed in two phases - a phase 1 version that could be launched by an existing launch vehicles, and a larger phase 2 design sized for launch by the Zenit-2 booster. Flight test and deployment of second generation systems were severely delayed by problems with the first stage of the Zenit-2 launch vehicle and by diversion of resources to Third Generation 'Star Wars' systems.

“The Soviet Unified Space System consisted of:

“Intercosmos”

In 1976 it was decided that the citizens of the East European countries will participate in manned space activities on the Soviet spacecrafts as part of the program “Intercosmos”. Apart form sound health a candidate should have had ideological principles, moral fiber, erudition and some other qualities required for a man in the Socialist society.

At the end of 1976 two candidates from three countries – the Czechoslovak Soviet Socialist Republic, the Polish People’s Republic and the German Democratic Republic were chosen to be prepared for the mission. The short flights were planned, just seven days and in comparison to other basic expeditions they were called “visit-expeditions.” A foreign cosmonaut had a status of a cosmonaut-researcher. The first foreign guest on the “Salyut-6” station there was the citizen of Czechoslovakia Vladimir Remek (March, 1978), the second the Pole, Miroslav Germashevski (June-July, 1978) and then the German, Sigmund Ien (August-September, 9178).

After that there was the second group of cosmonauts from Bulgaria, Hungary, Cuba, Mongolia, Romania. However, there emerged the difficulties which didn’t exist during the first flight, such as the knowledge of the Russian language, lack of flying and parachute training, etc. There were a lot of difficulties and cosmonauts as well as instructors, teachers and colleagues made every effort to overcome them. In 1980 the representatives of the Vietnamese Socialist Republic took part in manned space activities. The work continued on the “Mir” orbital complex when an international crew became a regular event.

They were the first examples of the cooperation between different countries but the success of the program showed that world space collaboration can be and must be developed. The opportunities appearing are enormous and numerous. /Children’s encyclopedia, Cosmonautics, Moscow, ”Avanta”/

Second generation Launch Vehicles

A completely new family of dedicated space launch vehicles, not derived from military missiles, would be developed to support the spacecraft. 50 TsNII-KS began research in 1973 on Plan Poisk - a new modular family of launch vehicles. The objectives were:

Work on the Zenit launch complex began in 1978. The first pad was ready in December 1983 but due to delays in development of the first stage engines flight trails did not begin until 13 April 1985. In the spring of 1987 state commission that accepted the basic system for military use, but much work remained to be done. This included construction of a second launch complex at Baikonur, qualification of a third stage for geostationary payloads, and construction of a third launch complex at Plesetsk.

At the conclusion of the deployment of these systems, the Soviet Union finally achieved military space system parity with the United States. But there were serious delays. By the end of the 11th Five Year Plan (1981-1985), of 23 priority systems requirements, 21 were from one to three years behind schedule. The two that had been completed were finished one year behind schedule. Only 60% of the planned flight trials launches had been completed. In particular delays in development of the new Zenit launch vehicle impacted all the other programs, increasing their costs. /www.astronautix.com/

Third Generation Soviet Space Systems (1985 to 1990)

Third generation Soviet space systems constituted an integrated Multi-Element Space System, including the planned Multi-echelon Anti Ballistic Missile System. Preparatory work for third generation systems was undertaken under the Tenth Five Year Plan (1976-1980), with full definition of the systems in the 11th Five Year Plan, (1981-1985). In 1985 the plans were drastically revised and a crash program was undertaken to meet the American Strategic Defense Initiative challenge during the 12th Five Year Plan (1986-1990). Third generations systems were to be fully on line by 1990. This plan was not achievable and the Soviet Union disintegrated before any third generations systems could be placed in service. /www.astronautix.com/

Multi-echelon Anti Ballistic Missile System

During the late 1960's and early 1970's Soviet research institutes, design bureau, the Academy of Sciences, and the General Staff conducted numerous discussions and unofficial studies. Among these plans were the use of the Korolev MKBS space station as a platform for a neutral particle beam weapon and logistical support of a constellation of military interceptor vehicles. The MKBS approach was abandoned when the N1 launch vehicle was cancelled.

An April 1976 decree began definitive project work on 'Star Wars' technology within the Soviet Union. To develop space weapons the two-phase Fon program was undertaken. Fon-1 encompassed fundamental research and draft project work on a variety of technologies - laser weapons, neutral particle beams, electro-magnetic rail guns, new orbital interceptor missiles, new conventional and nuclear warhead technologies, new anti-ballistic missiles, and space platforms to support these weapons. Fon-2 would take the technologies selected as a result of Fon-1 and conduct flight trials of prototype systems. Fielding of operational space combat units would only come thereafter.

The MOP Ministry of Defense Production set up a new Eighth Main Directorate to manage the work of the various institutes and bureau. P.S.Pleshakov of the Ministry of Radio Industry oversaw the work of the design bureau. In the 1970's and 1980's ambitious and complex research was conducted on space vehicles capable of destroying rockets in flight, airborne vehicles in the atmosphere, vessels at sea, and targets on land. These studies assessed both the feasibility and affordability of such spacecraft. Early results were not encouraging.

Directed energy weapons might have a better chance of engaging many targets in a surprise attack, but testing of charged practical beam technology resulted in many technical problems that would take a long time to solve. Laser technology was also pursued but also faced many technical and cost problems in achieving high energies.

The Soviet response was immediate. Yuri Andropov ordered additional funding and implementation of Fon-2. At the same time Soviet diplomatic initiatives were undertaken. A proposal was made to the Unite States to ban all space-based weapons. Andropov declared a unilateral moratorium on testing of the improved IS-MU ASAT. As a 'warning shot' the Terra-3 complex was used to track the STS-41-G space shuttle Challenger with a low power laser on 10 October 1984. This caused malfunction of on-board equipment and temporary blinding of the crew, leading to a US diplomatic protest.

According to Premier Andropov’s directive development of Soviet counterpart systems was started. The objective was deployment of space combat systems at the earliest possible date. Total space program expenditures to cover these systems were to be increased 35% from the 11th to 12th Five Year Plans (1986-1990) and 50% from the 12th to 13th Five Year Plans (1991-1995). /www.astronautix.com/

However, the top-level managers that ran the Soviet space program were fading into history. When Ustinov died in December 1984 the Soviet space program lost its biggest backer. He had been the impetus behind development of Buran and the electro-optical reconnaissance systems.

/www.russianspaceweb.com/

A 1 to 10 copy of the Energia-Buran system. Such models were equipped with solid rocket engines to imitate the acoustic loads during the launch. Copyright © 2000 by Anatoly Zak /www.russianspaceweb.com/

The Baikonur and Plesetsk launch centers were reorganized in 1984. Development of the planned conventional third generation space systems was delayed after 1985. Therefore flight trials of third generation satellites, planned for the 1986-1989 period were delayed to 1990 or beyond. The 12th Five Year Plan (1986-1990) doubled spending on space and priority was given to combat systems. The state budget for scientific research and experimental design went from 9% of the total in 1985 to 9% in 1989. Buran and Zenit flight test schedules were accelerated while work on light and heavy class launchers came to a stop.

1989 was the peak year for Soviet space, with 20% of the state scientific research budget devoted to space technology. In that year the civilian space program of the USA was $29.6 billion versus 6.9 billion roubles in the USSR. The American military space effort was costing $22.8 billion versus 3.9 billion roubles in the USSR, almost 6 times as much. Space economic and scientific programs were budgeted at $ 3 billion in the US versus 1.7 billion in the USSR. Reusable space systems cost $ 3.8 billion in the US versus 1.3 billion roubles in the USSR.

In 1992, as directed by the new Russian state's military and political leadership, all work on SDI projects was discontinued. The Spektr module was converted into a civilian platform. Its completion and docking with Mir was partially funded by the United States. The Buran shuttle, Mir-2 station, the space combat units - all were cancelled.

The Soviet balance sheet showed that conventional space systems had provided real benefits. Space amounted to 1.5% of the Soviet state budget. It was estimated that use of military satellites increased the effectiveness of military forces by 50% to 100%. In the 30 years since Sputnik the Soviet Union had spent 5.9 billion roubles on civilian space projects, with an estimated economic benefit of 12.6 billion roubles. The Moskva and Ekran television systems reached 93% of the USSR, with an economic benefit of 540 million roubles in 1988.

The US and USSR had achieved a balance of forces in the late 1970's and early 1980's, but then US military circled insisted on development of SDI. But in the Soviet analysis the USSR could have easily prevailed over any ABM system by using from 50% to 100% more missiles than the US. /www.astronautix.com/

Third Generation Launch Systems

“The aborted third generation systems would finally have replaced the remaining ICBM-derived boosters (Kosmos, Tsiklon, Soyuz, Proton). They would non-toxic, environmentally 'friendly' propellants to power a modular family of launch. These launch vehicles were:

Following the START disarmament agreements, in 1993 and 1994, the former Soviet SS–12M and SS–25 missiles were converted into commercial rockets (Rokot and Start respectively). Soviet missile technologies retained many similarities with those developed for satellite launches. In the same way, the Proton rocket, initially a missile, has become a launcher in the process of its development. The Kosmos series of satellites carried out all the missions demanded by the Soviet authorities, civilian and military.

 

The collapse of the USSR in 1991 led to a number of problems for its space programs. The first stemmed from the fact that the former Soviet launch sites were dispersed among various republics. The Russian Federation retained the Plesetsk launch site and constructed a new site at Svobodny, but the Baikonur site is now in Kazakhstan. The second consequence was that the Russian space budget shrunk from US$6 billion in 1992 to an estimated US$1 billion in 2001. Consequently, the programs suffered a marked slowdown. /www.astronautix.com/

Russian Federation Space Systems - Post-Soviet Space

After 1991 - the break-up of the Soviet Union resulted in the launch site for the largest launch vehicles and the main planned launch vehicle producer being outside of Russia. The sudden collapse of the launch rate meant that sufficient launch vehicles and spacecraft had been built to continue operations at a much-reduced level.

KIK Tracking stations no longer on Russian territory were abandoned, and to compensate three new tracking stations were built at Eysk, Maloyaroslavets, and Barnaul. With the break-up of the Soviet Union 75% to 90% of the space industry remained in Russia, but some unique capabilities, especially the Proton launch site, were lost.

Not all missions planned could be accomplished, and new priorities included attempts to commercialize space technology. Under the Konversiya concept space industrial facilities were to be converted to civilian use. Attempts were also made to market Soviet space technology internationally.

This was manifested as early as the launch of the Kristall module to Mir on 31 August 1990. The 19.5 ton module carried 7 tons of materials processing payload and the APAS-89 docking system for use with the US space shuttle. Collaboration with the United States on the ISS International Space Station also pumped funds into Mir. Meteor-TOMS was financed by Germany. In 1990 the Chinese head of state visited Baikonur, leading to space co-operation contracts from China. On 25 February 1992 the RKA Russian Space Agency was founded as a counterpart to the US NASA Agency. Staff involved with civilian space projects were transferred to the new organization.

Russian Federal Space Agency

 

Федеральное космическое агентство России

Established:

1992 (formerly the Soviet space program 1922-1991)

Administrator:

Anatoly Perminov

Budget:

$900 million (2006)

/www.en.wikipedia.org/

 

The Russian Federal Space Agency, commonly known as "Roskosmos", formerly the Russian Aviation and Space Agency is the government agency responsible for Russia's space science program and general aerospace research. Roskosmos' headquarters are located in Moscow and its main operational center is located in a town nearby known as Star City. /www.en.wikipedia.org/

On 7 November 1992 the UNKS was replaced by the UK-VKS - Directorate for Command of the Military Space Forces.

During 1993-1994, 27 launches involving 47 communications satellites were undertaken, or 29% of all Russian space missions. Despite one launch failure, 27 low earth orbit, 7 highly elliptical, and 12 geosynchronous spacecraft were successfully deployed.

As the 1990's continued military and civilian satellite constellations could not be sustained. Key satellite and rocket components were only made in ex-Soviet states that wanted hard currency or high prices. No budget was available to continue programs. The unpaid workers of the space industry were however able to continue by using reserve rockets and spacecraft plus complete those units that were in the pipeline when the Soviet Union broke apart. Satellite constellations were replenished at a slow rate but kept at a minimally operational status by rearranging existing satellites.

Russian space launches meanwhile ground to a virtual halt. In July 1997 the VKS Space Force was dissolved as a separate service arm and incorporated, together with the anti-ballistic missile arm of the PVO, into the RVSN Strategic Rocket Forces.

The absolute nadir was reached in 1999, when Russia orbited only 16 satellites, one sixth the number in the last year of the Soviet Union.

Under the leadership of President Putin, Russian space began to revive. Launches were conducted in 2000-2001 to finally replenish military satellite constellations and return them to minimum operational levels (Glonass, Molniya-3, Orlets-2, Prognoz SPRN, Raduga-1, Strela-3, Tselina-2, US-PM, Yantar-1KFT, Yantar-4K1 and Yantar-4KS1). Development of the all-Russian Angara modular launch vehicle to finally replace earlier designs and move all Russian launch operations back to Russian territory was revived with new vigor.

As Russia entered the new millennium it was following a strategy of using existing military space systems to retain a minimum essential military space capability. Slow development of the Angara launch vehicle continued to be funded through successful commercial sales of Proton launch services and Zenit rocket engines. Secrecy in regard to new military satellite development was reimposed. The dim outlines of a modernized, lightweight, and more appropriate Russian space capability for the 2010's was emerging.

Implementation Trends of the Russian Federal Space Program

 

“The Federal Space Program is aimed at directly solving major socioeconomic, scientific and defense problems, developing advanced technologies and creating research and technological potential.

Space communications and TV broadcasting:

- expanding fixed trunk, zonal, and local communications services;

- creating a large-scale system of communications with mobile objects compatible with international mobile communications facilities;

- covering the entire territory of Russia with multiprogram TV and radio broadcasting (zonal and regional);

- providing new personal communications services based on low-orbit space systems.

Remote sounding of Earth:

- cartography, ecological monitoring, exploration of natural resources, study of the World Ocean, and monitoring of the ice situation;

- the acquisition of comprehensive operational meteorological information in the interests of meteorological forecasting;

- continuous observation of global atmospheric processes;

- monitoring of the land and ocean surface and human activity in the interests of the economy, science, ecology, defense, and the prevention of catastrophes and elimination of their aftermath, if any;

- effective control over the observance of treaties and agreements.

Fundamental space exploration:

- the exploration of planets of the Solar system;

- comprehensive investigations into solar radiation;

- the study of the state and evolution of the Universe;

- the exploration of the Earth's magnetosphere and interaction between the Sun and Earth;

- medical investigations under microgravitation conditions.

Coordinate-and-timing support:

- the creation of assets for the massive employment of space navigation and geodetic systems;

- the expansion of the use of space assets to solve problems calling for highly accurate determination of coordinates, speed and time characteristics of moving objects.

Manned space flights and space technologies:

- medical and biological investigations;

- the creation of a research and technological potential for the implementation of future exploration programs of the Moon and Mars in cooperation with foreign countries;

- the optimization of means and procedures for servicing automated spacecraft and assembling large-size complexes in orbit;

- the optimization of experimental technologies and creation of new materials and base components under outer-space conditions in the interests of science and defense.

Development of spacecraft launch systems and ground-based space infrastructure:

- support for space programs in the interests of the economy, science, international cooperation, and national defense;

- reducing of the nomenclature of launch vehicles and launch complexes and avoiding the use of ecologically contaminated light- and medium-class launch vehicles;

- the modernization of the Proton and Soyuz type launch vehicles and extension of their service lives;

- the creation and employment of new light- and heavy-class launch vehicles, their production and launch from Russian territory;

- the use (during a transitive period) of launch vehicles based on deactivated intercontinental ballistic missiles;

- the modernization, repair, and reconditioning of technological equipment of technical and launch complexes.

Development of the automated spacecraft ground control complex:

- the development of new control facilities for commercial spacecraft using components of the defense-purpose spacecraft automated ground control complex;

- the change-over to new-generation spacecraft control facilities and the introduction of new efficient spacecraft control technologies competitive in the world market of space services;

- the creation of new structural elements and hardware for the automated ground control complex that are compatible with foreign hardware.” /www.u459.74.spylog.com/

USA Space Programs

USA Launch Sites

Cape Canaveral (1949-1958)

Snark Missile at Cape Canaveral Pad 1

/www.spaceline.org/

“As post-war development of missile weapons progressed, a site became necessary to develop tactics and techniques for guided missile operations, train personnel, test equipment used to operate the missiles and conduct functional and tactical tests of new guided missiles to determine their effectiveness.

A suitable facility would need to be relatively isolated from centers of population, provide a large expanse of unpopulated area over which missiles could fly and accommodate the installation of several downrange tracking stations. A base for military operational headquarters would also be required.

Although a missile range had been in operation at White Sands, New Mexico since the close of World War II, this range was only 135 miles long and was perilously close to populated areas.

In October, 1946 the Joint Research and Development Board under the Joint Chiefs of Staff established the Committee on the Long Range Proving Ground to analyze possible locations for a new missile range to be shared by the various branches of the military.

Three potential sites emerged and in September, 1947, the Committee announced its decision to recommend the establishment of a missile proving ground at the California site, with Cape Canaveral and on September 5, 1947 the Army Air Forces activated the National Guided Missiles Group to pursue development of the missile range. The Air Force was established on September 18, 1947 and inherited the National Guided Missiles Group.

“Cape Canaveral was a perfect site for the establishment of a missile range. Covering 15,000 acres, the Cape was relatively isolated from heavily populated areas, but it was accessible by road, rail and shipping. The weather was also favorable most of the year.

Although Launch Pads 1, 2, 3 and 4 and their associated support buildings were not all fully completed, the Army scheduled launches of two modified German V-2 rockets for July, 1950. The rockets were called Bumper, and each employed a V-2 rocket as first stage and a Without Any Control (WAC)-Corporal rocket as second stage. The first rocket launch from Cape Canaveral, that of Bumper #8, occurred on July 24, 1950.” /www.spaceline.org/

John F. Kennedy Space Centre

“It is located on the golden shores of the of Florida’s east coast. Its rich legacy includes launching all US space flight missions, form the early days of project Mercury to the space shuttle and the next generation of vehicles, and sending spacecraft to the farthest regions of our solar system and beyond.” /www.nasa.gov/

Wallops Flight Facility

“Wallops Flight Facility, located on Virginia's Eastern Shore, is NASA's premier site for suborbital and small orbital flight projects, Earth Science research, technology development, and home to NASA's only owned and operated launch range.” /www.nasa.gov/

Vandenberg Air Force Base

“Vandenberg Air Force Base is headquarters for the 30th Space Wing. The 30th manages Department of Defense space and missile testing, and placing satellites into polar orbit from the West Coast, using expendable boosters. Vandenberg is located on California's "Central Coast". Vandenberg and central California's coastal residents consider their environment mild. The 150 square mile area midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles is surrounded by the Santa Ynez Mountains, the Pacific shore, and ranches of northern Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties.” /www.Vandenberg.af.mil/

The Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation

“The Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation owns and operates the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC), a state-of-the-art spaceport on Kodiak Island. The KLC offers unobstructed flight paths away from populated areas and its latitude makes the facility ideal for launching satellites into polar orbits, and sub-orbital payloads for research and development. AADC serves the commercial and military aerospace industry and has developed the Nation’s first non-federally owned commercial spaceport. Its mission is to provide space launch services, to foster new space-related industries in the state and to stimulate interest in space careers and technology among Alaska’s young people.” /www.akaerospace.com/

History of the USA Space Programs

United States space activities are conducted by three separate and distinct sectors: two strongly interacting governmental sectors (Civil and National Security) and a separate, non-governmental Commercial Sector. Close coordination, cooperation, and technology and information exchange will be maintained among these sectors to avoid unnecessary duplication and promote attainment of United States space goals. /www.jaxa.jp/

NASA

After the Soviet Union launched its first space vehicle the American public was concerned about the Soviet space program. Politicians feared that Soviet superiority in space could threaten national security. In response the American government replaced NACA with NASA - the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1958. One of NASA's missions was to have strong peaceful purposes in the exploration of space. /www.fi.edu/


NASA Insignia

established:

July 29, 1958 (by the National Aeronautics and Space Act)

Administrator:

Mike Griffin

budget:

$16.8 billion

/www.en.wikipedia.org/

Much as they had with airplanes, people began realizing the usefulness of satellites. Satellites could help in navigation and weather forecasting as well as observing, collecting and transmitting information about the earth's atmosphere and space phenomena as well as information beneficial to national security. Some satellites acted as small telescopes or housed equipment for science experiments. /www.fi.edu/

Mercury Project

In October, 1958, within its first week, NASA announced, Project Mercury, the first of three manned space programs for the United States. Proposed derivatives of the basic one-crew Mercury capsule for investigation of earth orbit rendezvous, lifting re-entry and land landing.” /www.en.wikipedia.org/

This was the first series of manned space flights conducted by the United States (1961–63). The series began with a suborbital flight about three weeks after the Soviet cosmonaut Yury Gagarin became the first human in space Alan B. Shepard, Jr., rode a Mercury space capsule dubbed Freedom 7 on a 486-kilometre (302-mile) flight of 15-minute duration. /www.britannica.com/

On Feb. 20, 1962, John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth in a Mercury spacecraft. Over the next several years, an inspired U.S. space program proceeded with the McDonnell two-man Gemini, perfecting techniques that incrementally built up on-orbit experience. This effort culminated with the North American Aviation (NAA) Apollo spacecraft, featuring a crew of three. /www.boeing.com/

Apollo Program

The Apollo Program was originally conceived early in 1960, during the Eisenhower administration, as a follow-up to America's Mercury program. While the Mercury capsule could only support one astronaut on a limited earth orbital mission, the Apollo spacecraft was intended to be able to carry three astronauts on a circumlunar flight and perhaps even on a lunar landing. While NASA went ahead with planning for Apollo, funding for the program was far from certain, particularly given Eisenhower's equivocal attitude to manned spaceflight.

In the speech which initiated Apollo, Kennedy declared that no other program would have as great a long-range effect on America's ambitions in outer space. Following the success of Project Apollo, both NASA and its major contractors investigated several post-lunar applications for the Apollo hardware. The "Apollo Extension Series", later called the "Apollo Applications Program", proposed up to thirty flights to Earth Orbit. Many of these would use the space that the lunar module took up in the Saturn rocket to carry scientific equipment. /www.en.wikipedia.org/

Gemini

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced December 7, 1961, a plan to extend the existing manned space flight program by development of a two-man spacecraft. The program was officially designated Gemini on January 3, 1962. The program was operationally completed with the Gemini XII flight. It was managed by the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas.

The Gemini Program was conceived after it became evident to NASA officials that an intermediate step was required between Project Mercury and the Apollo Program. The major objectives assigned to Gemini were:

The Gemini Program was successful. All of the major objectives were met as well as many other objectives assigned to each mission, with the exception of land landing which was canceled from the Gemini Program in 1964. However, the precision control necessary to achieve the land landing objective was demonstrated. /www.pao.ksc.nasa.gov/

Gemini/Titan Launch

 

Gemini. Titan launch /www.pao.ksc.nasa.gov/

Scylab

Of all the plans, only two were implemented: the Skylab space station (May 1973 – February 1974), and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (July 1975). /www.en.wikipedia.org/

America's grand space plans of 1969 foresaw parallel development of space stations in earth and lunar obit, lunar bases, and expeditions to Mars. Instead NASA fell on hard times as the space budget was drastically reduced due to the high cost of the Vietnam War and social programs. NASA was barely able to secure funding for the Space Shuttle in 1972 as Apollo was cancelled. The abandonment of the Saturn V launch vehicle forced NASA station designs to be modularized - delivered in sections by the new space shuttle and assembled in orbit. The space agency had to exist on a virtual shoestring budget throughout the 1970s while struggling to complete the Shuttle development program. The new Shuttle Transportation System (STS) turned out to be more expensive than expected when it finally became operational in 1982, but with development completed, the money became available for NASA to proceed to the next step. /www.astronautix.com/

Skylab capped the successful moon-landing program. Skylab astronauts made 10 spacewalks that included tasks to deploy the station's solar array and install a parasol sun shield to cool the station. Three long-duration flights studied the effects of space travel on the human body, made astronomical observations and performed earth sciences research. McDonnell Douglas outfitted the unique lab from a Saturn V upper stage. /www.boeng.com/

The Skylab space station was launched May 14, 1973, from the NASA Kennedy Space Center by a huge Saturn V launch vehicle, the moon rocket of the Apollo Space Program. Sixty-three seconds after liftoff, the meteoroid shield--designed also to shade Skylab's workshop--deployed inadvertently. It was torn from the space station by atmospheric drag. This event and its effects started a ten-day period in which Skylab was beset with problems that had to be conquered before the space station would be safe and habitable for the three manned periods of its planned eight-month mission.

In the meantime, the space station had achieved a near-circular orbit at the desired altitude. All other major functions including payload shroud jettison, deployment of the Apollo Telescope Mount (Skylab's solar observatory) and its solar arrays, and pressurization of the space station occurred as planned. /www.pao.ksc.nasa.gov/

On April 12, 1981, decades of research into a reusable spacecraft finally became a reality when Space Shuttle Columbia made its first of four orbital flight tests. The space shuttle had its first operational mission in November 1982, when Columbia deployed two communications satellites.

NASA Systems - Boeing 747 Carries Space Shuttle

/www.boeing.com/

“The shuttle program quickly made important contributions to scientific research and also showed the feasibility of working in space.” /www.boeng.com/ “There are 3 shuttles in the US fleet: Discovery (1983), Atlantis (1985) and Endeavour (1991), which replaced Challenger.” /www.aerospaceguide.net/

The Strategic Defense Initiative

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly called Star Wars after one of the popular science fiction movies of the time, was proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983 to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. The initial focus of the strategic defense initiative was a nuclear explosion powered X-ray laser . /www.bbc.co.uk/

In a televised address from the White House the US leader said: “…The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace. ...the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable - quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.

…For 20 years the Soviet Union has been accumulating enormous military might. They didn't stop when their forces exceeded all requirements of a legitimate defensive capability. And they haven't stopped now. During the past decade and a half, the Soviets have built up a massive arsenal of new strategic nuclear weapons - weapons that can strike directly at the United States...

...The Soviet Union is acquiring what can only be considered an offensive military force. They have continued to build far more intercontinental ballistic missiles than they could possible need simply to deter an attack. Their conventional forces are trained and equipped not so much to defend against an attack as they are to permit sudden, surprise offensives of their own…

…There was a real question then about how well we could meet a crisis. And it was obvious that we had to begin a major modernization program to ensure we could deter aggression and preserve the peace in the years ahead…

…We had to move immediately to improve the basic readiness and staying power of our conventional forces, so they could meet - and therefore help deter - a crisis…

…One of the most important contributions we can make is, of course, to lower the level of all arms, and particularly nuclear arms. We're engaged right now in several negotiations with the Soviet Union to bring about a mutual reduction of weapons… If the Soviet Union will join with us in our effort to achieve major arms reduction, we will have succeeded in stabilizing the nuclear balance...

..America does possess - now - the technologies to attain very significant improvements in the effectiveness of our conventional, non-nuclear forces. Proceeding boldly with these new technologies, we can significantly reduce any incentive that the Soviet Union may have to threaten attack against the United States or its allies...

As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one... We seek neither military superiority nor political advantage. Our only purpose - one all people share - is to search for ways to avert the danger of nuclear war.” /www.cnn.com/

Though SDI was never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of this program paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today. The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to the Strategic Defense Initiative. Under the administration of President Bill Clinton in 1993, its name was changed to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and its emphasis was shifted from national missile defense to theater missile defense; from global to regional coverage. BMDO was later renamed to the Missile Defense Agency. This article covers defense efforts under the SDIO. /www.en.wikipedia.org/

SDI was criticized for potentially disrupting the strategic doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. MAD postulated that intentional nuclear attack was inhibited by the certain ensuing mutual self-destruction. Even if a nuclear first strike destroyed many of the opponent's weapons, sufficient nuclear missiles would survive to render a devastating counter-strike at the attacker. The criticism was that SDI could have potentially allowed an attacker to survive the lighter counter-strike, thus encouraging a first strike by the side having SDI. Another destabilizing scenario was countries being tempted to strike first before SDI was deployed, thereby avoiding a disadvantaged nuclear posture.

Ronald Reagan responded that SDI would be given to the Soviet Union to prevent the imbalance from occurring. How and whether this massive technology transfer would have happened was often debated. A complication of the MAD argument was that MAD only covered intentional nuclear attacks by a rational opponent with similar values, not accidental launches, rogue launches, or launches by non-state entities. /www.en.wikipedia.org/

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

“Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, known as EELV, is designed to improve the United States' access to space by making space launch vehicles more affordable and reliable. The program is replacing the existing fleet of launch systems with two families of launch vehicles, each using common components and common infrastructure. As the Air Force's space-lift modernization program, EELV was designed to reduce launch costs by at least 25 percent over heritage Atlas, Delta and Titan space launch systems.

The initial phase of the EELV program, Low Cost Concept Validation (LCCV), was successfully completed in November 1996.” /www.Vandenberg.af.mil/

Lockheed Martin Atlas V

“The Lockheed Martin Atlas V resulted from Lockheed Martin's combination of the best practices from both the Atlas and Titan programs into an evolved commercial and government launch system for the 21st century. All nine Atlas V to date were successfully launched. The Atlas V family uses a single-stage Atlas main engine, the Russian RD-180 and the newly developed Common Core Booster (CCB)TM with up to five strap-on solid rocket boosters.” /www.Vandenberg.af.mil/

Goals and Purposes of the USA Space Activities

“A fundamental objective guiding United States space activities has been, and continues to be, space leadership. Leadership in an increasingly competitive international environment, does not require United States preeminence in all areas and disciplines of space enterprise. It does require United States preeminence in the key areas of space activity critical to achieving our national security, scientific, technical, economic, and foreign policy goals.

The overall goals of United States space activities are:

1.     to strengthen the security of the United States;

2.     to obtain scientific, technological and economic benefits for the general population and to improve the quality of life on Earth through space-related activities;

3.     to encourage continuing United States private-sector investment in space and related activities;

4.     to promote international cooperative activities taking into account United States national security, foreign policy, scientific, and economic interests;

5.     to cooperate with other nations in maintaining the freedom of space for all activities that enhance the security and welfare of mankind; and, as a long-range goal;

6.     to expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system.

United States space activities shall be conducted in accordance with the following principles:

·      The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all mankind. "Peaceful purposes" allow for activities in pursuit of national security goals;

·      the United States will pursue activities in space in support of its inherent right of self-defense and its defense commitments to its allies;

·      the United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of sovereign nations to acquire data from space;

·      the United States considers the space systems of any nation to be national property with the right of passage through and operations in space without interference. Purposeful interference with space systems shall be viewed as an infringement on sovereign rights;

·      the United States shall encourage and not preclude the commercial use and exploitation of space technologies and systems for national economic benefit. These commercial activities must be consistent with national security interests, and international and domestic legal obligations;

·      the United States will, as a matter of policy, pursue its commercial space objectives without the use of direct Federal subsidies;

·      the United States shall encourage other countries to engage in free and fair trade in commercial space goods and services;

·      the United States will conduct international cooperative space-related activities that are expected to achieve sufficient scientific, political, economic, or national security benefits for the nation. The United States will seek mutually beneficial international participation in space and space-related programs.” /www.jaxa.jp/

International Space Station

International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Discovery, December 19, 2006 /www.school.discovery.com/

The International Space Station (ISS) will be a little “city in space” orbiting 250 miles above the Earth. About the size of two football fields, the space station will be a place where people from around the world can live and study in space over long periods of time. The many modules of the station—from its laboratories to living quarters to power sources - will be constructed in space.

 

 

International Space Station insignia

/www.school.discovery.com/

Sixteen countries from around the world are collaborating on the International Space Station. These international partners are as follows:

·  United States (NASA)

·  Russia (Roskosmos)

·  Canada (CSA)

·  Japan (JAXA)

·  Brazil (AEB)

·  European Space Agency (Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland).

The United States and Russia are leading the effort—an incredible partnership considering that until a decade ago, these countries were bitter rivals in space exploration. But every country is making a unique contribution to the ISS—from the laboratories where cutting-edge research will be conducted to the robotic “arm” that will help assemble and maintain the exterior of the station.

Once the components are launched into orbit, the real builders are the astronauts and cosmonauts who are risking their lives to complete the assembly in space. After new modules are docked with the space station, crew members will perform dangerous space walks on the exterior of the station to connect wires, deploy antennas, and complete other maintenance tasks. In the hostile environment of space, one mistake could be deadly. For every hour spent on a space walk, the astronauts have trained 10 hours underwater-—the closest thing on Earth to a weightless environment. /www.school.discovery.com/

Origins and Start of the Program

In the early 1980s, NASA planned Space Station Freedom as a counterpart to the Soviet Salyut and Mir space stations. It never left the drawing board, and with the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War it was cancelled. The end of the Space race prompted the U.S. administration officials to start negotiations with international partners Europe, Russia, Japan and Canada in the early 1990s, in order to build a truly international space station. This project was first announced in 1993 and was called Space Station Alpha. It was planned to combine the proposed space stations of all participating space agencies: NASA's Space Station Freedom, Russia's Mir-2 (the successor to the Mir space station, the core of which is now ISS Zvezda) and ESA's Columbus that was planned to be a stand-alone spacelab.

Throughout the 1990s, construction delays hit the project, budget projections were heavily revised and the ISS structure was modified frequently. The ISS has been, as of today, far more expensive than originally anticipated. The ESA estimates the overall cost from the start of the project in the late 1980s to the prospective end in 2016 to be in the region of $130 billion (€100 billion).

The first section, the Zarya Functional Cargo Block, was put in orbit in November 1998 on a Russian Proton rocket. Two further pieces (the Unity Module and Zvezda service module) were added before the first crew, Expedition 1, was sent. Expedition 1 docked to the ISS on November 2, 2000, and consisted of U.S. astronaut William Shepherd and two Russian cosmonauts, Yuri Gidzenko, and Sergei Krikalev. /www.en.wikipedia.org/

/www.russianspaceweb.com/

USA

NASA carried the biggest share of the station price tag. The US Space Shuttle served as a major carrier of the station's elements to orbit, including US-built main truss of the station, four sets of solar arrays, and radiators, US-built laboratory and habitable modules, interconnected with the special node modules, the big airlock for spacewalks, assembly and servicing platforms and eventually reusable "lifeboat" for the crew.

/www.russianspaceweb.com/

RUSSIA

Russian Aviation and Space Agency, pledged to contribute key elements, originally developed for the Mir-2 program, into the ISS project. Moscow-based Khrunichev enterprise has also built the first element of the station - Zarya/FGB control module - under contract with Boeing. The Zvezda service module, the copy of the Mir's core module, provided living quarters and propulsion capabilities; Docking Compartment brings an airlock and additional docking port for the Russian segment. Science and Power Platform carried solar arrays and radiators, Universal Docking Module provided docking ports for at least three application modules.

/www.russianspaceweb.com/

EUROPE

The Western-European countries-members of the European Space Agency provided Columbus pressurized science lab and a free-flying platform, which could dock to the station. At the beginning of the 1990s, the length of the module had to be reduced, a free-flying platform completely dropped from the project. In a separate contract with NASA, Italy is building resupply modules carried in the Shuttle cargo bay. A special Ariane-5-launched space tug, built by the European Space Agency with the Russian help, would provide additional cargo supply capability to the station.

/www.russianspaceweb.com/

JAPAN

National Space Agency of Japan, NASDA, contributed into the project a pressurized lab and unpressurized science platform. Although the original plans expected that Japanese launch vehicles and mini-shuttle could support the program, but neither was ready by the time the assembly of the station started in 1998.

/www.russianspaceweb.com/

CANADA

Canadian engineers used their extensive experience gained in the course of developing of the robotic arm for the US Shuttle, to design even more elaborate and sophisticated robotic systems, which would facilitate the assembly and servicing of the International Space Station.

/www.russianspaceweb.com/

BRAZIL

Brazil promised to build special carriers, which would be installed externally on the station's main truss and serve as platforms for the outpost's payloads. On October 14, 1997, the Brazilian and US governments (represented by the Brazilian Space Agency - AEB and by NASA) signed an agreement where Brazil agreed to provide parts for the ISS to NASA and will have utilization rights.

The first full-time crew moved into the space station on November 2, 2000

The Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement

Cover page of the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement signed on January 28, 1998

/www.en.wikipedia.org/

The legal structure that regulates the space station is multi-layered. The primary layer establishing obligations and rights between the ISS partners is the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), an international treaty signed on January 28, 1998 by fifteen governments involved in the Space Station project: the ISS consists of the United States, Canada, Japan, the Russian Federation, and eleven Member States of the European Space Agency (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). Article 1 outlines its purpose:

‘This Agreement is a long term international co-operative framework on the basis of genuine partnership, for the detailed design, development, operation, and utilization of a permanently inhabited civil Space Station for peaceful purposes, in accordance with international law.” /www.en.wikipedia.org/

The IGA sets the stage for a second layer of agreements between the partners referred to as 'Memoranda of Understanding' (MOUs), of which four exist between NASA and each of the four other partners. There are no MOUs between ESA, Roskosmos, CSA and JAXA due to the fact that NASA is the designated manager of the ISS. The MOUs are used to describe the roles and responsibilities of the partners in more detail.

A third layer consists of bartered contractual agreements or the trading of the partners' rights and duties, including the 2005 commercial framework agreement between NASA and Roskosmos that sets forth the terms and conditions under which NASA purchases seats on Soyuz crew transporters and cargo capacity on unmanned Progress transporters.

Sixteen countries are spending billions of dollars, many years, and risking the dangers of space to build the space station because they believe the benefits of the station will ultimately outweigh the enormous costs. Perhaps the most important benefit is that the space station allows humans to live and study for long periods in microgravity, or a “weightless” environment. Since gravity influences almost every biological, physical, and chemical process on Earth, the space station gives us the unprecedented opportunity to study a world without gravity - and better understand gravity’s effects on plants, animals, and humans. Experiments taking place in the station’s six laboratories should have extraordinary benefits:

Future Space Travel

The space station is a stepping-stone to the stars. If humans are ever going to travel to other planets, such as Mars, we must understand the effects of such long journeys on the human body. We’ve learned from past space travel that living in microgravity leads to the weakening of bones and muscles. The space station will allow scientists to understand these effects and study solutions for long-term space travel.

Medical Advances

Without gravity, chemical reactions behave differently than they do on Earth. This means that molecules can be blended and substances created that would be impossible on Earth. These experiments may lead to possible treatments for diabetes, AIDS, cancer, and organ transplants. Finally, watching the long-term effects of gravity in space will teach us about biological processes back on Earth, such as aging and osteoporosis.

New Materials

The space station is a unique environment in which to create and study new materials. The microgravity conditions will allow scientists to study physics, combustion science, fluid flow, and crystal growth in a completely new way. Scientists hope that these experiments will lead to new industrial products that can be used back on Earth - from lighter, stronger metals to new materials for contact lenses. But studying in microgravity is not the only reason for the space station.

Understanding Earth

For the first time, we will be able to observe Earth from different angles over long periods of time. The space station will allow us to watch large-scale changes in the environment to better understand our own planet.

Understanding Space

The space station will also give us an opportunity to study the harsh environment of space. Kibo, the Japanese module, will include an exposed “back porch” for such external experiments.

Advances in Technology

Scientist have developed new technologies for the space station that they believe will some day help humans back on Earth. One example is “Robonaut” — a robot that will perform tasks on the station’s exterior. Robonaut has a robotic hand operated by virtual reality, an innovation with great potential for amputees on Earth. But this is only the beginning. Technology with potential for the future also will include computer software, lower-cost and energy efficient heating and cooling systems, air and water purification systems, and advances in communications. /www.school.discovery.com/

TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

Space issues discussions had been started in the United Nations, actually, since there was formed a Committee on using Space for peaceful purposes only in 1959. Then UN practically became the centre of international law development that regulates now not only states’ activities connected with the study and use of space itself including celestial bodies, but their activities on the Earth, in the airspace of the Earth.

Important sources of the international space law were the agreements Russia made with the USA, Germany, France, Brazil, Chile and some other countries in the 1990s. These documents regulated the activities of a number of international organizations. The scale and variety of those activities are so great that it allows us to speak about the global domains of the international law. /“Social sciences and contemporaneity”, Journal, Moscow 1999 №6/

The Outer Space Treaty (1967) is the principal multilateral treaty governing space arms control, due both to its broad framework and its widespread international support. Other important multilateral treaties include: the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963), the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972), and the Convention on the Registration of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space (1976). Today, due to the fact that many countries have indigenous launch capabilities as well as civilian, military and commercial space programs, the legitimacy of any space arms control norm depends on the buy-in of the major space-faring nations. Without their support, treaties like the Moon Treaty (1979) are rendered ineffective.

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), the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) I Interim Agreement (1972), the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987), and the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) I (1991). 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.

The U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the Bush Administration's subsequent focus on missile defense and space-based weapons systems have sparked international debate on the need for more restrictive space arms control measures. Initiatives led by Russia and China calling for a multilateral treaty banning space weapons indicate that there is growing international concern about the potential for a space arms race. Listed below are the primary treaties and conventions that govern space arms control, their key provisions, and membership. /www.oosa.unvienna.org/

Multilateral Treaties

Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963)

131 parties, 64 signatories

o      Forbids the test explosion of any nuclear weapons in outer space, the atmosphere, and under water.

“The relation of a test ban to other aspects of disarmament was for a time a troubling issue. The initial Soviet proposal of a test ban on May 10, 1955, was part of a comprehensive plan to reduce conventional forces and armaments and to eliminate nuclear weapons. Later that year, in the General Assembly, the Soviet Union advocated a separate test ban. The three Western powers, over the next three years, made discontinuance of tests contingent on progress in other measures of arms control, particularly a cut-off in the production of fissionable materials for weapons and safeguards against surprise attack. They insisted that a test ban could not be enforced in the absence of more general control agreements.

On June 14, 1957, the Soviet Union for the first time offered test ban proposals that included international control. The proposals were very general: establishment of an international supervisory commission and control posts, on the basis of reciprocity, on the territories of the three nuclear powers and in the Pacific Ocean area. The Western powers suggested that a group of experts work out the details of a control system, while the delegates considered a temporary test ban in relation to other disarmament measures.

The Soviet Union continued to press for an immediate suspension of tests, and the United States for agreement on a control system as a necessary accompanying measure. In March 1958 the Soviet Union announced that it was discontinuing all tests and appealed to the parliaments of other nuclear powers to take similar action. It added, however, that the Soviet Union would "naturally be free" to resume testing if other nuclear powers did not stop their tests. President Eisenhower rejected the proposal, stating that some tests could be conducted "under conditions of secrecy," and renewed the proposal for an experts group to study control problems.

In January 1959 the United States and the United Kingdom dropped the linkage between a test ban and other arms control agreements; France, however, did not. The French continued to maintain that until there was agreement on nuclear disarmament - including an end to weapons production, reconversion of stocks, and a ban on possession and use - French plans to conduct tests would go forward. The Soviet Union abruptly reversed its position in June 1961, when Premier Khrushchev declared during his meeting with President Kennedy in Vienna that the test-ban question must be linked with general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Union refused to modify this position until November, when it proposed a separate test ban with no controls whatever, pending agreement on general and complete disarmament.

The effort to achieve a test ban, and to resolve the stubborn issues involved, had been pursued in a wide variety of channels. Successive General Assembly sessions had debated the issue. It had been a major item on the agenda of the U.N. Disarmament Commission and its Subcommittee of Five (later ten). The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union had engaged in a long tripartite effort -The Conference on the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapon Tests - in almost continuous session in Geneva from October 31, 1958, to January 29, 1962. Under its auspices three technical working groups of experts had investigated and reported on various aspects of control: one on high altitude tests, another on underground tests, the third on seismic research programs to improve detection capabilities.

The three-power meetings began on July 15. The long years of discussion had clarified views and greatly reduced areas of disagreement, and a Treaty was negotiated within 10 days. It was initialed on July 25 and formally signed at Moscow on August 5, 1963, by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the Foreign Minister of the USSR, Andrei Gromyko, and the Foreign Minister of the U.K., Lord Home.

The parties to the Treaty undertake "not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion," in the atmosphere, under water, or in outer space, or in any other environment if the explosion would cause radioactive debris to be present outside the borders of the state conducting the explosion.

The Treaty is of unlimited duration. Article II notes that any party may propose amendments, and that, if so requested by one-third or more of the states Party, the Depositary Governments are to convene a conference to consider the amendment. This article stipulates that any amendment must be approved by a majority of Parties, including the three Original Parties. Article III opens the Treaty to all states, and most of the countries of the world are parties to it. The Treaty has not been signed by France or by the Peoples Republic of China.

In August 1988, six countries (Mexico, Indonesia, Peru, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, and Venezuela) presented a proposal to the three Depositary Governments to amend the LTBT and to have a special amendment conference to consider this proposal. Their proposal was to extend the LTBTs prohibitions to all environments, transforming the LTBT into a comprehensive test ban. By late March 1989 the Depositary Governments had received the requisite number of requests, in accordance with Article II of the Treaty, to convene such a conference for consideration of the proposed amendment. The Conference was held in January 1991. The United States, strongly opposed to using the LTBT as a vehicle for negotiating a comprehensive test ban, made it clear to all participants that it would block any attempt to amend the LTBT by consensus.” /www.state.gov/

The Outer Space Treaty (1967)

97 parties, 27 signatories

o      Bans weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on celestial bodies, or stationed in space in any way.

o      Bans military installations or fortifications and weapons testing on celestial bodies.

o      Bans claiming ownership of territory in space and on celestial bodies.

o      Requires prior notification in case of planned harmful activities in space.

 

“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.

In early 1957, even before the launching of Sputnik in October, developments in rocketry led the United States to propose international verification of the testing of space objects. The development of an inspection system for outer space was part of a Western proposal for partial disarmament put forward in August 1957. The Soviet Union, however, which was in the midst of testing its first ICBM and was about to orbit its first Earth satellite, did not accept these proposals.

Between 1959 and 1962 the Western powers made a series of proposals to bar the use of outer space for military purposes. Their successive plans for general and complete disarmament included provisions to ban the orbiting and stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction. Addressing the General Assembly on September 22, 1960, President Eisenhower proposed that the principles of the Antarctic Treaty be applied to outer space and celestial bodies.

Soviet plans for general and complete disarmament between 1960 and 1962 included provisions for ensuring the peaceful use of outer space. The Soviet Union, however, would not separate outer space from other disarmament issues, nor would it agree to restrict outer space to peaceful uses unless U.S. foreign bases at which short-range and medium-range missiles were stationed were eliminated also.

The Western powers declined to accept the Soviet approach; the linkage, they held, would upset the military balance and weaken the security of the West.

After the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Soviet Unions position changed. It ceased to link an agreement on outer space with the question of foreign bases. On September 19, 1963, Foreign Minister Gromyko told the General Assembly that the Soviet Union wished to conclude an agreement banning the orbiting of objects carrying nuclear weapons. Ambassador Stevenson stated that the United States had no intention of orbiting weapons of mass destruction, installing them on celestial bodies or stationing them in outer space. The General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on October 17, 1963, welcoming the Soviet and U.S. statements and calling upon all states to refrain from introducing weapons of mass destruction into outer space.

The United States supported the resolution, despite the absence of any provisions for verification; the capabilities of its space-tracking systems, it was estimated, were adequate for detecting launchings and devices in orbit.

Seeking to sustain the momentum for arms control agreements, the United States in 1965 and 1966 pressed for a Treaty that would give further substance to the U.N. resolution.

The United States accepted the Soviet position on the scope of the Treaty, and by September agreement had been reached in discussions at Geneva on most Treaty provisions.” /www.state.gov/

“The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:

·                   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;

·                   States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

98 States have ratified, and an additional 27 have signed the Outer Space Treaty (as of 1 January 2006).” /www.oosa.unvienna.org/

 

Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972)

82 ratifications, 25 signatures

o      Requires that a state pay compensation for any damage its space objects cause to another state’s space assets on Earth, in flight, or in space.

 

“The Liability Convention was considered and negotiated by the Legal subcommittee from 1963 to 1972. Agreement was reached in the General Assembly in 1971 (resolution 2777 (XVI)), and the Convention entered into force in September 1972. Elaborating on Article 7 of the Outer Space Treaty, the Liability Convention provides that a launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft, and liable for damage due to its faults in space. The Convention also provides for procedures for the settlement of claims for damages. As of 1 January 2006, 82 States have ratified, 25 have signed the Liability Convention and three international intergovernmental organization (European Space Agency, the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, and the European Telecommunications Satellite Organization) have declared their acceptance of the rights and obligations provided for in this Agreement.” /www.oosa.unvienna.org/

 

Convention on the Registration of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space (1976)

44 parties, 4 signatories

o      Requires international notification of the function and orbit of all space launches.

 

“The Space Preservation Treaty is a proposal developed for the international community by the Institute for Cooperation in Space. Drawing upon resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and various aspects of the Outer Space Treaty, it calls for the banning of space-based weapons in order to maintain the peaceful use of outer space for the benefit of all countries. This treaty would seem to effectively ban all weapons designed to damage orbiting satellites, not merely prohibiting the deployment of weapons in space. Also, it calls for an end to research and development of space-based weapon systems.” /www.oosa.unvienna.org/

 

The Moon Treaty (1979)

10 parties, 5 signatories

o      Bans weapons of mass destruction on, in orbit around, or on a trajectory around the Moon.

o      Bans military installations, fortifications and weapons testing on the Moon.

o      Requires that the exploration and exploitation of natural resources on the Moon be carried out for the benefit and interest of all countries irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. /www.oosa.unvienna.org/

 

“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.” /www.oosa.unvienna.org/

“The Moon Treaty is the only one of the four documents drafted by COPUOS not yet in force; the Secretary General has not yet received deposition of the instruments of ratification by five nations, as required by the treaty itself. The Moon Treaty also represents the only one of the four agreements which became deeply imbedded in controversy immediately upon its resolution of approval by the General Assembly. Some of the most controversial provisions include:

The Treaty was codified in 1979. Its basic purpose was to insure that any wealth obtained from the Moon by any space faring nation was to be distributed to all the people of the world. This treaty was the culmination of the time when the world's underdeveloped nations were attempting to use international forums to assert their rights as sovereign nations and to obtain their share of the world's and space's resources.

In the Moon Treaty is a phrase which states that the Moon is the "common heritage of all mankind." The Outer Space Treaty had words which sounded similar - "the common Province of all mankind", but actually meant that no single country could claim outer space or other celestial bodies as colonies, but it permits the use of the resources. "The common heritage of all mankind" is a phrase which means all the resources of space belong to all nations and the use or extraction by one nation is against this treaty. There is also an international organization established to redistribute the wealth returned from the moon and Outer Space. This interpretation of the treaty is disputed and has resulted in the U.S. and Soviet Union/Russia not signing the treaty.

The Moon Treaty has only been ratified by nine countries since its codification in 1979. Neither the U.S. nor Russia have signed it. This treaty brought the international cooperation period to a close. Mistrust of the Northern nations by the Southern nations has become more apparent and there has been less desire to cooperate. Future treaties for the use of outer space may be in doubt even if they are desperately needed.” /www.lunar.arc.nasa.gov/

Conclusion

We have observed space programs of the two leading states. Thanks to their achievements we now have the technologies whose development was originally for the military space use but later people started to use them in everyday life. For example, satellite use. Nowadays satellites are widely applied as communication means, information transaction means. In Russia Internet providers have also started to offer Internet access services by means of satellites.

The development of military and military space programs created and increased tension between the superpowers. But in spite of this our two states still made numerous attempts to agree on some restriction and ban of conducting research and tests connected with weapons that can cause damage to the Earth and the mankind. This led to appearance of multilateral treaties which limited military space use and weapons deployment. And as a result the main trend of space exploration is a peaceful one though Russia and the US have not refused their military projects and according to the latest news we can hear in the mass media they are going to develop them further.

However, the humanity still has realized the benefits of joined research, political and financial ones as well. Instead of conducting isolated parallel research and developing identical technologies investing huge amounts of money and trying their hardest it is more beneficial to join those efforts and to get a more qualitative result. For instance, our countries have always been conducting research on the development of launch systems and have been trying to create a better fuel for rocket engines. If originally our two states had cooperated on those projects that probably could have prevented human deaths when launching rockets into space. But most certainly it would help to defuse tension between our countries. Nowadays a good example of world space cooperation is the International Space Station. And we hope that this project will continue to develop.

Bibliography

1.     Children’s encyclopedia, Cosmonautics, Moscow, “Avanta”, 2000

2.     “Social sciences and contemporaneity”, Journal, Moscow 1999 №6

3.     www.advantour.com

4.     www.aerospaceguide.net

5.     www.akaerospace.com

6.     www.astronautix.com

7.     www.bbc.co.uk

8.     www.boeing.com

9.     www.britannica.com

10.  www.cnn.com

11.  www.en.wikipedia.org

12.  www.fi.edu

13.  www.jaxa.jp

14.  www.lunar.arc.nasa.gov

15.  www.nasa.gov

16.  www.oosa.unvienna.org

17.  www.pao.ksc.nasa.gov

18.  www.russianspaceweb.com

19.  www.school.discovery.com

20.  www.spaceline.org

21.  www.state.gov

22.  www.u459.74.spylog.com

23.  www.unidir.org

24.  www.Vandenberg.af.mil