Why don't we see more multi-national space programs?

[Yru0]

Hits it on the head with the title. An earlier thread on 'if you were given your country's space program' got me to thinking, why don't we see more of these - a la ESA? I understand that a major component of space programs is national pride, so major players like China, Russia, the US etc are unlikely to team up simply because they don't need to; and Europe is definitely an anomaly to begin with with the EU already providing a lot of foundation for co-operation beforehand. But, logically a number of nations teaming up is better than going at it alone surely?

So why don't we see more small-time players, or even those who don't have active space programs, collaborate? I'm not talking about massive international programs to send manned missions to Mars etc, but more along the lines of say Australia and New Zealand getting together to get at least a sattelite program going, or even some of the Middle Eastern or African nations getting together just to manage some infrastructure?

[lajoswinkler]

It's because it's either too expensive to build the whole infrastructure instead of just paying someone to launch something for you (or you pay for the data obtained by a foreign satellite, which is the cheapest option), or some nations simply don't have the need for anything like that and have other huge problems to deal with. Some countries don't even have enough people to be in charge of such projects because their education system is a disaster. Lots of countries in Africa are a great example.

[Kryten]

Another factor is that it's not actually that expensive to get things built and launched by foreign suppliers, at least on the scale of national budgets. This in turns results in nations simply purchasing launches of whatever they feel they actually need, rather than trying to produce their own spacecraft or launch infrastructure. As an example, take Azerbaijan's (not exactly the largest or richest of nations) first satellite, launched this year; a full-size GEO comsat built by Orbital in the US and launched by arianespace.

[Idobox]

Think of it this way, if your country has a space budget of a few million € a year, even if you team up with a bunch of other small countries, you will have trouble having anything comparable to ESA.

But you can make a probe, a satellite, an instrument for the ISS or a rover, and get some bigger agency to launch it.

If you look at Curiosity, France participated on ChemCam and SAM, the REMS was provided by Spain with help from Finland, the x-ray spectrometer is from the Canadian space agency, Germany helped with the RAD, and Russia provided the DAN.

And I wouldn't be surprised that smaller countries have helped with some small parts here and there too.

[The Jedi Master]

Because space exploration is still technically a military asset. It's like giving the guy who neighbors you an ICBM. The Space Race happened at the height of the Cold War, remember.

[DerekL1963]

Hits it on the head with the title. An earlier thread on 'if you were given your country's space program' got me to thinking, why don't we see more of these - a la ESA?

The ESA isn't a model I'd want to base my space program on - theoretically an independent NGO, in actuality it's heavily burdened by a complex mess of national and international politics

Europe is definitely an anomaly to begin with with the EU already providing a lot of foundation for co-operation beforehand.

The ESA predates the EU by several decades and is completely separate from and independent of the EU.

So why don't we see more small-time players, or even those who don't have active space programs, collaborate? I'm not talking about massive international programs to send manned missions to Mars etc, but more along the lines of say Australia and New Zealand getting together to get at least a sattelite program going, or even some of the Middle Eastern or African nations getting together just to manage some infrastructure?

That's fine for some abstract 'satellite program' or equally abstract 'infrastructure', it doesn't work so well in the real world where different nations have different needs and priorities.

[Yru0]

It's because it's either too expensive to build the whole infrastructure instead of just paying someone to launch something for you (or you pay for the data obtained by a foreign satellite, which is the cheapest option)

^This sums up what I figured pretty well, but surely economically it would be better for a nation to have its own launch capabilities in the long run? Else why would we be bothering so much? The other thing I was thinking about is specifically this foreign satellite data thing. I'm a bit limited on examples, so I'm going to keep coming back to Australia: we do this quite a bit, but I'm wondering if it's really wise if you're piggybacking military communications on private foreign-owned satellites. Not saying I'm particularly nationalistic or anything, it just seems a bit off.

As an example, take Azerbaijan's (not exactly the largest or richest of nations) first satellite, launched this year; a full-size GEO comsat built by Orbital in the US and launched by arianespace.

For countries like Azerbaijan I imagine that's the best way forward, but looking at much larger and wealthy countries - definitely not the top dogs for sure but still up there - with little or next to nothing of a space program to speak of is what confuses me a bit. My little experiment was to google a list of space programs and a list of countries by GDP and to see how they matched up.

If you look at Curiosity, France participated on ChemCam and SAM, the REMS was provided by Spain with help from Finland, the x-ray spectrometer is from the Canadian space agency, Germany helped with the RAD, and Russia provided the DAN.

I had NO idea Curiosity was international like this. My excitement level for the rover just went up beyond the roof. Why isn't stuff like this publicized more?! Or do I just live under a rock...

That's fine for some abstract 'satellite program' or equally abstract 'infrastructure', it doesn't work so well in the real world where different nations have different needs and priorities.

Yeah, my bad for being vague. Truth is I know next to nothing of the going-ons of most space programs, but again back to my stock example: recently in Australia during large bushfires the government had to ask China to borrow data from one of its satellites, as we had none of our own which could be used to monitor the blaze. Of course I doubt many other countries would have a bushfire-watching-satellite at the height of their priorities, so I imagine its a case-by-case issue as to what is really needed.

The ESA predates the EU by several decades and is completely separate from and independent of the EU.

And thus you have exposed how little I know about this kind of stuff.

[MBobrik]

because space programs in general are being phased out * so why to bother cooperating with others with something you don't intend to continue with ?

.

* notable exceptions china and India. but those countries do it just to prove to the others they can do it too, so cooperating with the others would be pointless.

Edited December 11, 2013 by MBobrik

[VirtualCLD]

I thought this might be appropriate:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/12/11/0242214/africa-clooney-and-an-unlikely-space-race

[Kryten]

* notable exceptions china and India.

And Russia, given the massive increases in Roscosmos funding in the last few years. And Brazil. And Ukraine. And South Korea. And Iran. And Turkey...

The world extends further than the borders of the US. Even the ESA budget has expanded for the past few years.

[Holo]

Because rockets are just ICBMs with scientific payloads, and sharing ICBMs is generally a poor tactical choice.

[jchad]

B....But it'd be cool!

[rkman]

And Russia, given the massive increases in Roscosmos funding in the last few years. And Brazil. And Ukraine. And South Korea. And Iran. And Turkey...

The world extends further than the borders of the US. Even the ESA budget has expanded for the past few years.

Also NASA is definitely running a couple of space programs, and although development of some programs have been canceled, it does not look like they are going to stop.

[NovaSilisko]

"Why don't we see more multi-national space programs? "

Simple. Because nations inherently don't like each other. Any appearance of blissful cooperation is, no matter how friendly, always at least somewhat begrudging.

[rkman]

politicians of different nations often 'don't like each other', but scientists generally do. Even during the cold war scientists from the US and Russia were collaborating. Then again, scientists don't run the show. Maybe one day they will.

[NovaSilisko]

politicians of different nations often 'don't like each other', but scientists generally do. Even during the cold war scientists from the US and Russia were collaborating. Then again, scientists don't run the show. Maybe one day they will.

That's what I mean. By "nations", I mean those that are running the nation, the politicians and bureaucrats.

[JustinS222]

Apparently the African Union is thinking of making its own space program, so that's a multi-national space program.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201008090886.html

[jwenting]

The more governments involved, the more bureaucratic, expensive, sluggish, etc. etc. etc. a program becomes.

Ergo, the more impossible it becomes to get anything done at all.

[Nibb31]

The more governments involved, the more bureaucratic, expensive, sluggish, etc. etc. etc. a program becomes.

Ergo, the more impossible it becomes to get anything done at all.

The thing is, only governments are willing to pay for space exploration. There is no money in it for the private sector.

[jpvalery]

If Space Programs were the only things where governments are dumb...

FYI : Spacial exploration has a ROI of 4 over 10 years. That means that if you invest now 100€ in spacial exploration, your investment will give you back 400€ in 10 years. Not bad huh !

To conclude : I think that this is a problem with multiple roots : obviously the military side of the question, the nationalism side too (very childish : "I'm the one who made it nanana" --') but also that in time of crisis, it's difficult to be a popular politician if you're planning to allocate massive financial resources to space program when everyone is moneyless at the end of the month...

[DerekL1963]

FYI : Spacial exploration has a ROI of 4 over 10 years. That means that if you invest now 100€ in spacial exploration, your investment will give you back 400€ in 10 years. Not bad huh !

FYI: That figure comes only from space supporters and space agencies - I've never seen any independent analysis of space spin-offs or ROI on investment in space exploration.

[Tex]

Simply put: Humans are often terrible with trying to work together. It's (too) rare to see different groups of people working together unless there's a benefit for everybody. By that, I mean money-wise. The world is entirely within the thrall of material goods and currency. It's not right.

[Skyrunner27]

They don't have a need to team up is basically the point. Why join with someone else when you can hire the other guy to launch your stuff and you still have full control over it. Sort of what the UK and Canada did with their first satellites and America. Also most of the areas besides North America and Europe are made of countries that hate each other.

[rkman]

FYI : Spacial exploration has a ROI of 4 over 10 years. That means that if you invest now 100€ in spacial exploration, your investment will give you back 400€ in 10 years.

There is no basis to declare that with such certainty.

How would anyone know that? No-one has long-term experience with commercial space exploration.

It's probably just some economists claiming that, and economists have well established track record of getting it wrong.

The more governments involved, the more bureaucratic, expensive, sluggish, etc. etc. etc. a program becomes.

Ergo, the more impossible it becomes to get anything done at all.

Only if you gloss over the fact that government funded space programs did and do get a lot things done.

Edited December 15, 2013 by rkman

[Nibb31]

I'm not getting the OP's question.

Space agencies collaborate together regularly. The main science instruments on Curiosity are made by ESA and the results are monitored and analyzed in France. ESA also had instruments on Phobos/Grunt. ESA is building the service module for Orion in Germany. JWST is going up on an Ariane 5. Soyuz is launched in both Baikonour and in Kourou. Most of the ISS USOS modules were made in Italy. Japan provided major instruments for BepiColombo.

The same holds true for most large projects. Practically all space science platforms carry major instruments that are made and controlled by international partners. Actually, I can't think of a single large space exploration mission in the last 20 years that wasn't a major international cooperation effort.