This paper analyses potential future collaborative space exploration architectures in terms of i) the technical capabilities of contributing partners; and ii) the constraints imposed by internal and international politics. We find that when international partners are considered endogenously, the argument for a “flexible path” approach is weakened substantially. This is because a) international contributions can make “moon first” economically feasible; and b) characteristics of proposed “flexible path” approaches may preclude international involvement due to the disproportionate risk that those contributions inherently bear. This could have serious implications for future collaborations. We also note that while there are multiple feasible collaborative architectures, there is currently substantial overlap among what the international partners are identifying as potential niche contributions. Acknowledgements – The authors would like to thank 2LT George R. Sondecker for his contributions to the writing of this paper. Each of the country-specific sections draw heavily on group work conducted as part of MIT’s graduate space policy seminar [16.891] in spring 2010; we thank the students for their efforts.
[1]
Edward F. Crawley,et al.
Architecting Value: The Implications of Benefit Network Models for NASA Exploration
,
2007
.
[2]
Michel-Alexandre Cardin,et al.
A framework for evaluating international cooperation in space exploration
,
2008
.
[3]
Sylvia Gloggnitzer,et al.
The Treaty of Lisbon
,
2008
.
[4]
Frank A. Slazer,et al.
Delta IV launch vehicle growth options to support NASA's space exploration vision
,
2005
.
[5]
Bernhard Hufenbach,et al.
The NASA-ESA Comparative Architecture Assessment
,
2008
.