Given the choice between getting into another space race with one or more launch-capable nations and creating alliances to further space exploration and manned missions, cooperation seems to be the most sane choice for the future. Logic would dictate that sharing a mission's financial burden would be cheaper, and alliance-building partnerships always seem like a good idea.
However, as a panel discussion pointed out this morning, a variety of hurdles stand in the way of joint space projects.
National security concerns are a primary reason that cooperation might not work, said Lt. Gen. Michael Hamel, commander of the Space & Missile Systems Center for the U.S. Air Force Space Command (rightmost in the photo). While the United States does work with a number of allies and gives them access to sensitive U.S. technology for earthbound forces, it's not true for space-based assets, he said.
"Joint allied operations are more the rule now, and that needs to extend to space," Lt. Gen. Hamel told attendees.
On the civilian side, attempts at doing business with other nations can run afoul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which does not just restrict the transfer of weapons, but also of missile, rocket and computer technology that is deemed to be critical to national security. Another panelist, Craig Cooning, a former major general in the U.S. Air Force and now a vice president at Boeing (leftmost in the photo), said that ITAR has "put boundaries around our ability to develop coalition space."
Yet, civilian space companies are most likely to develop lasting alliances, said Rex Geveden, associate administrator at NASA. When you have people that believe that humans should migrate into space, alliances to accomplish the goal are not so far fetched, he said.
"Cooperation tends to be a bit more natural in civil space because you are dealing with a lot of idealists," Geveden said.
