The Politics of Space: Understanding Space Policymaking


John M. Logsdon
Graduate Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy
George Washington University

I. Introduction
George Washington University

The business of government is the making of decisions‹decisions that authoritatively allocate advantages and disadvantages for an entire society. Politics represents the process of government decisionmaking (rather than having choices made by the market or by some other institution such as religion). The decisions of government officials range from the mundane to the fundamental. If decisions about policy‹ i.e., what course of action to follow‹indeed constitute the central activity of government, then the study of those decisions and the selection process preceding them should be a primary concern of political scientists.

As an area of government activity, the U.S. space program has been prominent for a quarter century. The government has made and implemented numerous decisions about the objectives, pace, and management of various elements of the U.S. space program, and policymakers continue to address and resolve many such concerns. (The focus on government decisions does not deny the importance of diverse private sector space-related decisions, but until recently the government-sponsored activity dominated the U.S. space program.) Political scientists have developed a variety of approaches to understand and analyze the policymaking process, and such methods can be applied directly to comprehending the formulation of space policy.

Unfortunately, the public policy decisionmaking process is extremely difficult to study. Space policies, particularly those of highest significance, are determined within the executive branch of the government, often without public or even Congressional participation. President John F. Kennedy once argued that the factors that influence the most prominent national policy discussions never could be completely understood: "There will always be the dark and tangled stretches in the decisionmaking process‹ mysterious even to those who may be most intimately involved . . . " (1).

How, then, can one understand and explain a government action in any specific policy situation? Political scientists can claim some success in developing theories that interpret the behavior of various actors and institutions in the American political process. For example, the determinants of voting behavior have been identified, the influence of Congressional committees analyzed. The many Presidential roles have been studied, the limits on Presidential power discussed. In short, political scientists can speak with some confidence about the determinants of the general behavior patterns of the most important elements of the political system. However, with only a few exceptions, political scientists have not yet developed theories that can verify with any degree of confidence why a policymaker implements specific action or crafts a particular decision. This point needs emphasis. To contend that a President usually acts to preserve his professional reputation and public prestige is a plausible theory (2); to suggest that these considerations represent the primary factors that determine Presidential action on a specific issue is quite another hypothesis‹and much more difficult to prove.

Yet there is no shortage of often conflicting explanations of particular governmental decisions in both the foreign and domestic spheres. If a political scientist cannot rely on extant theories to produce a high degree of confidence in those explanations, how can improved theories be developed? How can an analyst assess the motivations behind a specific policy decision?

For political scientists, an important distinction is drawn between description and explanation. A historian might be interested in describing the myriad events associated with a particular decision and perhaps preparing a narrative that details the policymaking process; however, a political scientist probably would attempt to interpret the relationship between those events as causes and the decision as effect. The following discussion illuminates the way political scientists go about this job, i.e., how they relate causes in the space policy decisionmaking process to a specific policy outcome.

II. Conceptual Frameworks for Decisionmaking

Since political scientists do not possess any verified theory of decisionmaking, they generally explain a policy choice in much the same way we all explain the world. Humans are bombarded constantly with sensory stimuli and various forms of information. These inputs constitute the data base for assembling an understanding of the world and the relationship of individuals to the world in which they live. Raw data are processed by the nervous system and brain and assembled into images and insights that are interpreted in the context of past experiences and education. This processing is accomplished with the help of filters and models. Filters screen out some data as irrelevant or unnecessary and permit other more useful bits to be absorbed. Models help integrate these disparate data bits into a coherent analysis that makes sense (to the sane) and provides an understanding or insight into the world and its functioning. The whole process of formal and informal education throughout a lifetime serves as a means to develop more sophisticated, useful, and realistic filters and models to help the individual relate to the world. Education ceases when these filters and models become incontrovertibly set‹an event that unfortunately occurs too early for too many people.

The analyst who explains a particular policymaking process and the resulting decision employs a process analogous in many ways to the one just described. An almost endless amount of data is potentially relevant to the explanation. For example, the capabilities, actions, and intentions of other nations often affect policy choices. The milieu of other events surrounding the decision process may well provide an influential context. Each participant in the process applies a set of personal characteristics and values that may be important. Prior rivalries of a personal, organizational, or national nature may be significant, and so on. Obviously, it is humanly impossible to prepare a complete "state of the world" description of each decision process that contains all the information potentially relevant to an explanation of the resulting policy.

When an analyst confronts too much potentially relevant data, that analyst must use some method to select pertinent data and determine which questions to answer. The criteria for this winnowing process are contained in an implicit or, more frequently, an explicit conceptual framework or model of how and why policy decisions are generally made. Such a model performs the function of filtering and organizing the raw data basic to understanding the decision. Like the filters and models of the human mind, the conceptual framework used by the policy analyst serves as a tool that permits the separation of the relevant from the irrelevant, the important from the trivial, the unexpected from the routine. Such frameworks or models are not theories; the constituent variables and relationships have not been verified empirically. If the models could be proved, they might become theories; however, even without theoretical status, such models constitute a necessary starting point.

No one conceptual model of policymaking is "best" or "correct" in the view of most political scientists. Rather, a variety of such models exists, and several typical models are reviewed in the next section. Of course, the use of different models may and usually will explain the same decision differently. In the absence of a verified theory of policymaking, no one model can provide a totally accurate or completely reliable explanation of a particular decision. This constraint probably would not stop lay observers from thinking they understand the factors that drive a given decision, and professional policy analysts frequently aren't inhibited either. Yet, if an explanation is not independent of the model used to develop it, and if different models produce different explanations, how can one determine whether a particular explanation is "right?" Quite simply, one can't.

Because the major concerns of political scientists include the study of policymaking, it is not surprising that political scientists have developed a wide variety of conceptual models to analyze policy decisions. In aggregate, the models incorporate a multitude of factors conceivably related to the policy behavior of a nation-state. Political scientists see potential influences on policy variables ranging from the overall distribution of world power to the psychological traumas of childhood. James Rosenau (3) suggests that all such variables can be grouped into five broad influences:
(1) Individual, or the characteristics (e.g., values, talents, experiences) unique to a particular decisionmaker. John Kennedy's activist orientation represents an example of such a characteristic.
(2) Role, or the officials' behaviors that are associated with the roles or positions occupied. For example, the behavior and priorities of the NASA Administrator are likely to differ from those of the Secretary of Defense.
(3) Governmental, or those aspects of a government's structure that condition or influence the choices of decisionmakers, such as the Constitutional separation of powers in the United States.
(4) Societal, or the nongovernmental aspects of a society that influence its policy choices, for example, the pragmatic nature of American culture or the power of American business.,
(5) Systemic, or factors external to a country that affect decisions made by that country's officials. Examples of variables in this category include geographical constraints and other countries' policies.

Rosenau's categories constitute only one way of listing factors potentially relevant to understanding a specific policy decision. Political scientists disagree over criteria for identifying the factors most relevant to explaining the selection of any given policy. Additionally, political scientists argue over adaptations of decisionmaking models to treat such factors as causes and policy as effect.

One particularly influential class of models, collectively known as the decisionmaking approach, posits a causal relationship. Such models focus on the process that produces a policy decision as a means of explaining why that decision was made. These decisionmaking models have been used to discover how officials actually responsible for setting policy go about their task. This approach reconstructs the world at the time of decision from the policymakers' perspectives. Analysts using the decisionmaking approach attempt to explain why decisionmakers select one particular course of action from the many potentially available options. Such analysts emphasize decisionmakers' interpretations and evaluations of the multiple factors that influence both the policymaking process and officials in that process.

One also can describe decisionmaking as a rational process that enables a decisionmaker to: rank objectives in order of priority; identify various means of achieving those objectives (i.e., policy alternatives); gather as much information as possible about the benefits and costs of each alternative, including the costs of not pursuing other alternatives (opportunity costs); and then select the policy alternative that offers the best combination of maximized benefits and minimized costs.

By viewing policymaking as rational and calculated, the analyst can avoid factors such as personal idiosyncracies or organizational politics, since these do not exert an important influence on policy choice (almost by definition). This approach simplifies the explanatory task significantly. For the past thirty years scholars have debated whether the benefits of such simplification are outweighed by the distortions introduced by excluding or minimizing other variables. Those questioning the validity of the rational decision model point out that severe obstacles to rational choice are inherent in almost every decision situation. These obstacles arise largely from the fact that policies are not produced by a single, omniscient, and totally objective decisionmaker, but by numerous decisionmakers with limited information, often conflicting goals, and competitive policy preferences.

Another decisionmaking model springs from the conviction that "policymaking is politics," to quote one student and practitioner of decisionmaking (4). To analysts who concentrate on the political aspects of decisionmaking, policy is not primarily a product of calculated choice, but rather of a political process, because officials share power and "differ about what must be done. The differences matter" (5). The process of reaching agreement on appropriate policies is characterized by bargaining, compromise, and influence, rather than by calculation‹ i.e., a political process.

Scholars applying this method give particular emphasis to variables internal to the government (those in Rosenau's individual, role, and governmental categories) as determinants of policy choice. These scholars address questions such as: Who participates in the decisionmaking process? What organization and group affiliations do they have? What power do they possess?

III. Using Models to Analyze Space Policymaking

Each model described briefly above can be expanded, and pertinent research questions for each model can be identified:

A. A Rational Decision Model

Analysts employing this model assume that the best way to explain governmental decisionmaking behavior is analogizing to the behavior of a "rational" individual seeking the "best" means to achieve goals or solve problems. The government thus simulates a unified actor choosing policies according to a procedure incorporating the following steps:
(1) The government perceives and defines a problem.
(2) The government specifies goals and objectives relevant to solving that problem and ranks them in order of relative importance.
(3) The government lists alternative policies for achieving specified ends.
(4) The government identifies the consequences, both favorable (benefits) and unfavorable (costs), that result from each policy alternative.
( 5 ) The government selects the alternative with the best mix of costs and benefits over the whole range of relevant goals (6).

To the political scientist using this model, policy explanations focus on the goals the government served when choosing a particular policy and on the degree of reasonable correspondence between that policy and the nation's objectives. For the model to analyze a particular policy choice, the political scientist needs answers to the following questions: (1) What national interests, goals, and objectives were relevant? In what order of priority? (2) What alternative courses of action did the policymakers examine? (3) What benefits and costs were predicted for each alternative examined?

When employing this model as an explanatory tool, the political scientist must not inject personal preferences or evaluations of alternative policies; the goal is to interpret the policymakers' analysis of a particular policy as the best and most rational choice. Of course, the model also encompasses normative implications, exposing the calculations of decisionmakers to broader criticism.

In the rational model, then, political scientists portray government as a purposeful, calculating actor, and government behavior in a specific instance is explained by knowing the purposes and calculations underlying that behavior. The central hypothesis of this model contends that a government will choose a policy designed to generate the best possible mix of maximized gains and minimized costs within the context of a particular set of objectives and in a particular decisional situation.

B. Incremental Bargaining Decision Model

Political scientists applying this model classify government policy as the result of a process characterized by "bargaining along regularized circuits among players positioned hierarchically within government" (7). Decisions are made not by one calculating decisionmaker, but by a process of interaction among various organizations and political actors. This process exhibits four characteristics:
(1) Each particular problem or situation encompasses diverse goals and objectives which must somehow be reconciled before a final decision.
(2) Groups of people within and outside government (sometimes associated with particular organizations, sometimes with membership cutting across organizational lines) support each alternative goal or objective and/or each alternative policy.
(3) Power, measured in terms of the ability to influence the outcome of a decisionmaking process, is unequally distributed among these interested groups. In this model, power constitutes a primary determinant of policy choice; consequently, this decisionmaking process is a political one. Policy results not from a rational calculation, but from conflict and cooperation, compromise and consensus-building among actors holding positions within and outside of the government and performing in accordance with a set of rules. These rules place high value on reaching a compromise agreeable to all parties actively involved in the process; the result is a "strain toward agreement" (8).

A policy produced by such a process is unlikely to differ significantly from policies that previously commanded agreement from relevant groups or officials. Thus, policy changes are usually incremental, representing only small shifts from earlier policies, and longer-range goals and objectives are pursued by a series of such incremental adaptations of existing policy.

Political scientists using the incremental bargaining decision model need to answer the following questions:
(1) Who participated in the decisionmaking process? What official positions did participants hold?
(2) What combination of national, organizational, group, and personal interests determined each participant's policy preferences?
(3) What factors influenced each participant's relative power?
(4) How did participants' policy preferences and their power relations combine to produce a decision? What was the structure of the policymaking process and under what rules did it operate?

Answers to this set of questions require more extensive information than the responses to the questions posed by the rational decision model. Details on the policy preferences of different government actors on a particular issue are not readily available, and evidence relevant to the sources of these preferences is even harder to find. Documents seldom record the dynamics of the bargaining process that generated a decision; for example, to fully answer question four, analysts frequently must interview participants. To piece together an account of a particular decisionmaking process using this model, the analyst must sensitively and skillfully combine and interrelate data from a wide variety of sources.

To summarize, in the incremental bargaining decision model a policy decision is seen to result from bargaining among individuals and groups. The selected policy likely will differ only incrementally from earlier policies. A decision is explained by: describing the structure of the decisionmaking process; identifying the participants in that process; specifying their preferences; detailing the sources of those preferences; and analyzing the "play of power" and contending calculations within the process that produced the decision.

IV. Space Policy as an Area for Study

Analysts can employ the two general classes of decision models discussed above to study a number of past, current, and future decision situations. For example, the following decisions can be plausibly explained using either the rational or the incremental bargaining decision model:
(1) establishing NASA in response to Sputnik;
(2) committing to a manned lunar expedition as a national goal;
(3) choosing a particular approach‹i.e., the lunar orbit rendezvous‹to accomplish the Apollo mission objectives; and
(4) rejecting another Apollo-like program aimed at manned planetary exploration ( 1969-70 time frame). Political scientists also can review other major decisions in the history of space policy from either perspective.

Furthermore, decisionmaking models can be used as frameworks for understanding current policy debates on various space-related issues, including those connected with Shuttle development. In this application, the models would guide the collection of data useful in understanding both the context of a policy debate and the substance of the issue(s). Analysts can employ decisionmaking models to study a variety of policy controversies, including:
(1) the future of the planetary exploration program;
(2) attempts to muster support for the solar power satellite concept;
(3) the maintenance of support for the Space Shuttle in the face of schedule slippages and cost overruns;
(4) appropriate goals for military space activities;
(5) federal involvement in space activities with commercial potential, such as space manufacturing;
(6) the U.S. position on ratification of the U.N. Moon Treaty;
(7) the development and organization of an operational satellite remote sensing system for the United States;
(8) attempts to focus attention on the concept of space colonies;
(9) the relation of space activities to U.S. foreign policy interests vis-a-vis Europe and/or Japan;
(10) the use of space technology as an instrument of the U.S. foreign assistance program;
(11) proposals by Comsat General and other firms to establish a new direct broadcast television service in the United States via satellites;
(12) controversies over the application of military-derived technologies to civilian space projects.

Finally, analysts can use decisionmaking models as tools to understand space policy as a basis for constructing scenarios about future policy choices. For example, one could focus on: the conditions that would favor a major new space project based on the success of the Space Shuttle; the resulting easy access to space and flexible capabilities for in-orbit operations; and the factors influencing approval of such a Shuttle follow-on project. Using the two decisionmaking models outlined above would sensitize an analyst to the wide range of factors that would determine the political feasibility of such an occurrence.

Appendix Two includes the syllabus and research assignments for a course that used the approach outlined herein, as well as additional insights from two experienced instructors.

Footnotes

1. John F. Kennedy in his foreword to: Theodore C. Sorenson. "Decision-Making in the White House." New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.

2. This is the argument of: Richard Neustadt. "Presidential Power." New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1960.

3. James N. Rosenau (ed). "The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy." New York: The Free Press, 1971, pp. 108-109.

4. This is the title of the first chapter of: Roger Hilsman. "To Move a Nation." Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1967. See also: Roger Hilsman. "The Politics of Policy Making in Defense and Foreign Affairs." New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

5. Graham T. Allison. "Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis." Boston: Little and Brown, 1971, p. 145.

6. This conceptualization of the classical model of rational decisionmaking is taken from: Charles E. Lindblom. "The Policy-Making Process." Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1968, p. 13. Lindblom is the primary proponent of the incremental model of decisionmaking, particularly as it applies to domestic politics. The fullest statement of his argument is in: David Braybrooke and Charles Lindblom. "A Strategy of Decision." New York: The Free Press, 1963.

7. See footnote 5, p. 144.

8. This model is drawn from the writings of Lindblom, Hilsman, and Allison (cited in footnotes 6, 4, and 5, respectively).

Appendix Two

Political Science

Course Syllabus and Sample Research Assignments


John M. Logsdon
Graduate Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy
George Washington University

The course was taught during the Spring 1981 term at George Washington University to thirty-five undergraduates, mainly juniors and seniors. The course seemed to maintain student interest; before they attended the initial class meeting, students did not know that the focus of the course would be on space policy, and thus there was no pre-selection based on prior space interest. The goal of the course was to give students a detailed sense of how technology and politics interact, and the space area is both representative of broader decision issues in the technology politics area and inherently interesting to most students. Thus the course can be viewed as successful, in large part because of the use of space policy as a substantive focus for a broader examination of the decisionmaking process.

I. Syllabus

Course: Science, Technology, and Politics
U.S. Space Policy: Past, Present, and Future

This course is intended to increase your understanding of the interactions between government policy and the U.S. scientific and technological enterprise and to show how the concepts and analytic perspectives of political science are useful in describing and explaining those interactions. It will focus on a particular sector‹the exploration and exploitation of outer space. The course will trace the evolution of U.S. space policy and of the institutions and processes through which space policy is formulated and implemented. It will identify the major issues facing the new Administration and Congress related to space policy goals for the next decade and will give you an opportunity to analyze some of those issues and to argue for particular policy options. The course will also treat some potential major space projects for the 1990s and beyond which require early investments of public resources, and you will be asked to discuss how those projects might be evaluated by current policymakers.

After a few introductory sessions, the course will be divided into three portions:
(1) Policy History of U.S. Space Activities‹Apollo and Its Aftermath .
(2) Current Issues in Space Policy‹Survival Crisis or the Dawn of a New Era?
(3) Our Future in Space‹Marginal Activity or Key to Human Survival?

For each portion of the course, each student will prepare a 10-12 page typewritten paper in response to an assignment which will be distributed at the first class meeting of that course element. This assignment will also contain a detailed schedule of topics for class meetings and readings for that part of the course. The grade for the course will be based on these three papers and on a final examination, which will cover all the course material.

The course will be based primarily on my lectures, with your questions and class discussion strongly encouraged. I hope to schedule 3-5 guest speakers during the semester and occasionally to use a film or other visual supplement to communicate a particular point.

Reading for the course will be drawn from three different classes of materials:
(1) Books for purchase.
John M. Logsdon. "The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest."
B.J. Bluth and S.R. McNeal. "Update on Space." Vol. 1.
Charles E. Lindblom. "Policymaking Process."
(2) Materials distributed in class without charge.
Steven Lefevre. "Technology Politics."
Other material available free and in sufficient quantity from government agencies and/or aerospace industries.
(3) Materials available either on reserve in the library or at the cost of duplication.

II. Research Assignment: The Evolution of U.S. Space Policy

The reading assigned for this portion of the course (listed below) traces the evolution of U.S. space policy from the initial reactions to Sputnik in 1957 to the present time. Your assignment is to identify the major influences, operating through the policymaking process, which have shaped that policy. The basic question you are being asked is: "How can the politics of U.S. space policy be best understood?"

Your basis for answering this question is the material in the "supplementary analytical unit" called "Technology Politics," which will be distributed in class. In this brief book are discussions of four alternate "policy perspectives" intended to be useful for understanding the processes through which decisions on technology-intensive issues are reached. You should use these discussions and the historical readings on space policy to prepare a paper discussing which policy perspective is most useful to you in understanding how U.S. space policy has been made. Does space policy appear to be a product of rational choice, of competition among various government agencies, of the struggle among interest groups, or of the powerful influence of business interests which dominate government policy? Are none of these policy perspectives useful? Or are several?

You can use the whole twenty-plus years of policy history as your empirical base for this paper, or you can limit yourself to specific major decisions (at least two) such as:
(1) Setting up NASA in response to Sputnik.
(2) The commitment to a manned lunar expedition as a national goal .
(3) The choice of a particular approach, lunar orbit rendezvous, to accomplish the Apollo mission.
(4) The 1969-70 decision not to undertake another Apollo-like program aimed at manned planetary exploration.
(5) The commitment to Space Shuttle development.


Assigned Readings:
John Noble Wilford. "Riding High." Wilson Quarterly. Autumn 1980, pp. 57-70.

John Logsdon. "Opportunities for Policy Historians: The Evolution of the U.S. Civilian Space Program." (Unpublished paper.)

John Logsdon. "The Decision to Go to the Moon." Chap. 1-5.

John Logsdon. "Selecting the Way to the Moon." Aerospace Historian. June 1971, pp. 63-70.

John Logsdon. "An Apollo Perspective." Astronautics and Aeronautics. December 1979, pp. 112-17.

John Logsdon. "The Policy Process and Large Scale Space Efforts." The Space Humanization Series. Vol.1, No. 1, 1979, pp. 65-80.

John Logsdon. "The Space Shuttle Decision: Technology and Political Choice." Journal of Contemporary Business. Vol. 7, No. 3, 1979, pp. 13-30.

Amitai Etzioni. "The Moon-Doggle." See pp. vii-xv.

White House. "Fact Sheet‹U.S. Civil Space Policy." October 11, 1978.

Schedule of Classes


Overview: The Evolution of U.S. Space Policy.
Apollo and Its Impacts.
Guest speaker: Michael Collins.
When Scientists Disagree: The LOR Decision.
After the Moon, Mars?
Commitment to the Shuttle.
The Current State of U.S. Space Policy.

III. Research Assignment: Current Space Policy Issues

Your assignment is to prepare a case study of a current space policy issue which discusses both: (1) the nature of the issue and the elements of controversy associated with it; and (2) the process through which that policy issue is being decided.

With respect to the latter aspect of the assignment (which should receive proportionately more attention than the former), what Charles Lindblom has to say in "The Policy-Making Process" is relevant: "To understand who or what makes policy, one must understand the characteristics of the participants [in the policy-making process], what parts or roles they play, what authority and other powers they hold, and how they deal with and control each other." In general, you should make extensive use of the Lindblom book to place your case study in the context of some more general observations about the policymaking process. That is, you should show how elements of your case are examples of some of the concepts and relationships which Lindblom discusses.

Your paper should be a descriptive analysis of an issue; you are not expected to discuss what policy the country should adopt on the issue you study. Rather, you should identify the stakes, the stakeholders, and the way in which a decision will be reached. You are welcome to speculate on the most likely outcome of the policy process you choose to study.

You should limit your paper to a specific space policy issue, not discuss space policymaking in general. Among issues you might select as a focus are:
(1) the future of the planetary program;
(2) attempts to obtain support for the solar power satellite concept;
(3) maintaining support for the Space Shuttle in the face of schedule slippages and cost overruns;
(4) the appropriate goals for military space activities;
(5) federal involvement in areas of space activity with commercial potential, such as space manufacturing;
(6) the U.S. position on ratification of the U.N. Moon Treaty;
(7) attempts to secure approval for a post-Shuttle major development project for NASA;
(8) organizing an operational satellite remote sensing system for the United States;
(9) the attempts to focus attention on the concept of space colonies;
(10) relating space activities to U.S. foreign policy interests vis-a-vis Europe and/or Japan;
(11) using space technology as an instrument of our foreign assistance program;
(12) proposals by Comsat General to establish a new direct broadcast television service via satellites in the United States;
(13) controversies over the use of military-derived technologies for civilian space applications; or
(14) how best to organize the U.S. government's share of the nation's civilian space effort.

This list of potential topics is far from exhaustive, and it probably would be useful for us to schedule an appointment before you get very far on your assignment.

Your source material should include Congressional hearings and reports, articles in such trade magazines as "Aviation Week and Space Technology," general periodical articles, NASA and other executive agency reports and publications, and interviews with participants in and observers of the space policy process.

Schedule of Class Topics and Supporting Reading

(1) "The New Politics of the U.S. Space Program"
Guest Speaker: Mark Chartrand, Executive Director, National Space Institute.

Readings:
Dennis Overbye. "Time to Halt the Retreat from Space." Discover. March 1981.

Trudy E. Bell. "Space Activists on the Rise." Insight. August-September 1980.

Charles Chafer. "The Role of Public Interest Groups in Space Policy." In: "Space Manufacturing III."

Brian O'Leary. "First Word." Omni. February 1981.

(2) "The Future of Space Science Programs" Guest Speaker: James van Allen, University of lowa.

Readings:
Richard R. Nelson. "The Simple Economics of Basic Research." In: Lefevre. "Technology Politics."

"A New Decade of Science and Astronomy in Space." New Scientist. Jan. 8, 1981.

Articles by Bruce Murray and Carl Sagan. From: "The Planetary Report." Vol. 1, No. 1.

Tony Reichhardt. "Why We Explore the Planets." Washington Post. Nov. 16, 1980.

Ron Konkel. "Solar System Exploration as a National Priority: An OMB Perspective." (Unpublished.)

Amitai Etzioni. "The Moon-Doggle." See pp. 195-198.

(3) "Space Industrialization: What Are the Payoffs?"

Readings:
Charles Gould. "Large Scale Benefits of Space Industrialization." In: Bluth and McNeal.

Robert Hammel. "Materials Processing in Space." In: Bluth and McNeal .

Gene Bylinsky. "Industry's New Frontier in Space." Fortune. January 24, 1979.

Charles Cooper. "Shuttle." New Yorker. Feb. 9 and 16, 1981. ( Excerpts. )

(4) "Space: A New Arena for Military Conflict?"

Readings:
Stanley Rosen. "The Role of the Military in Space." In: Bluth and McNeal .

"The New Military Race in Space." Business Week. June 4, 1979.

"Laser Technology Demonstration Proposed." Aviation Week and Space Technology. Feb. 16, 1981.

Anonymous. "The High Seas of Space." (Unpublished.)

Herbert Scoville and Kosta Tsipis. "Can Space Remain a Peaceful Environment?" Stanley Foundation Occasional Paper #18.

IV. Research Assignment: The Future of the U.S. Space Program

Decisions to be made in the next few years will determine, to a significant extent, the goals and pace of the U.S. space effort for the next decade or more. This is a situation that seems to occur approximately every ten years, at least with respect to the civilian side of the national space program. In 1961, NASA was assigned the Apollo mission; in early 1972, Space Shuttle development was approved. The question now is: What next?

Your assignment is to prepare a policy forecast of the most likely response to this "what next" question. This forecast can be prepared from either of two perspectives:
(1) An identification of what you believe is the appropriate next objective (or objectives) of the national space program, and an analysis of the nature and likelihood of the policy and political decisions which will be required to establish and implement that objective; or
(2) An analysis of the current and short-term future "policy climate" for space and, on the basis of that analysis, a forecast of what kinds of objectives are most likely to be selected for the national space program of the 1980s.

Whichever perspective you choose, your focus should be on the next 1-10 years, not the longer term. You should emphasize future policy issues and actions in your forecast, not technological opportunities; another way of stating the assignment is that you are being asked to integrate the readings and discussions of the course to construct a plausible scenario in response to the question: "What next in space policy?" Your paper will be evaluated primarily on your skill in constructing such a coherent and perceptive scenario.

Among the many alternative futures you may want to think about (there are many more) are:
(1) Setting another Apollo-like goal to revitalize the civilian space program;
(2) Setting a major program goal for NASA, such as permanent manned occupancy of space, but pursuing it on a nonpriority basis;
(3) Permitting the civilian space program to evolve (becoming either larger or smaller) on an incremental basis, judging each new proposal for space activity on a case-by-case basis;
(4) Recognizing that the space environment offers attractive opportunities for increasing our national security and/or that an expanded military space effort is required to counter the Soviet threat and significantly enhance the pace, visibility, and technical capabilities of the Air Force space program; or
(5) Accelerating efforts to negotiate some sort of space arms limitation agreement and attempting to increase significantly international cooperation in space activities.

Schedule of Class Topics and Supporting Reading

(1) What Next in Space? An Overview

Readings: John M. Logsdon. "The Decision to Go to the Moon." Chap. 6.

Burton Edelson. "A National Program for Geostationary Platforms." (Mimeo.)

Mose Harvey. "Preeminence in Space: Still a Critical National Issue." Orbis. Winter 1969.

Tom Krebs and Ernie Herrera. "The Capability to Control Space‹A New Space Doctrine." (Mimeo.)

(2) "Two Ideas That Failed (So Far): Space Colonies and Solar Power Satellites"

Readings: G.M. Hanley. "Space Shuttle and Solar Power Satellite Systems." In: Bluth and McNeal.

Peter Glaser. "Press Briefing on SPS." December 3, 1980.

Gerard O'Neill. "High Frontier." Astronautics and Aeronautics. May 1978.

Gerard O'Neill. "Islands in Space." From: "The High Frontier."

(3) "Permanent Manned Occupancy of Space: The Logical Next Goal ?"

Readings:
George V. Butler. "Space Stations, 1959-?" In: Bluth and McNeal.

Clark Covington and Robert Piland. "Space Operations Center: Next Goal for Manned Space Flight?" Astronautics and Aeronautics. September 1980.

(4) "The Prospects for Private Enterprise in Space"
Guest Speaker: Charles Chafer, Space Services, Inc.

Reading:
Klaus Heiss. "New Economic Structures for Space for the Eighties." Astronautics and Aeronautics. January 1981.

(5) The Long-Term Prospects

Reading:
Krafft Ehricke. "The Extraterrestrial Imperative." In: Bluth and McNeal.

A Course on Space Policy and the Course Syllabus

Nathan Goldman
Government Department
The University of Texas, Austin

I. The Course

After teaching at the University of Texas for a year, I received permission to offer the "Space Politics" course in the full semester format. (A previous version of the course at Johns Hopkins University ran one month.) Texas law requires that all 46,000 students take two semesters of American Government in order to graduate. The first semester examines the structures and institutions of state and national government. The second semester is a topics course which applies first semester knowledge to one specific policy area; I offer "Politics of U.S. Space Exploration" as such a course. Naturally, the syllabus is simplified to accommodate the demands of an introductory course.

The course enrolls approximately three hundred students from engineering, sciences, and liberal arts. The class meets twice a week for lectures supplemented by a few NASA films. During the third meeting period, the class is divided into ten discussion groups (thirty students each) led by two graduate students.

Grades are based on a midsemester exam (40 percent), a final exam (50 percent), and graduate student evaluations (10 percent) based on participation and oral reports on readings.

Readings for the course include four books and a packet of articles. Blaine's "End of an Era in Space Exploration" provides the class with a useful though technical history of spaceflight through the late 1970s. T.A. Heppenheimer's book, "Toward Distant Suns," speculates about the future and is enjoyable reading for the students. Logsdon's "The Decision to Go to the Moon" provides a political analysis of the race to the Moon, which atunes the students to the political counterpoint inherent in all governmental decisions. The packet of articles and the first volume of the "Space Humanization Series" (published by the Institute for the Social Science Study of Space) illustrate various social science concepts which are discussed in the lectures.

The space issue represents a flexible device for studying domestic and foreign politics Initially, lectures portray the history of spaceflight, noting pre-World War II efforts by the Greeks (Icarus), the Chinese, and the Indians. The next segment of the course analyzes the U.S. space program since the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA). Lectures examine NASA as a bureaucracy and its administrative decisionmaking. Organization and systems analysis provide the framework for discussing NASA within its environment, which includes not only the other agencies (such as the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget), but also the President, the Executive Branch, the Congress, the aerospace industry, space interest groups, and the general public.

Law serves as the transition between the domestic and the international policy arenas. Here, the lectures stress the importance of space law in the creation and maintenance of an international order in space. In addition to describing the duties and obligations of nations in space, space law also defines property rights in space and establishes a basis for the development of space by private individuals, corporations, and governments.

After discussions of this legal superstructure, the course comparatively analyzes the resources, projects, and goals of other space powers, such as the Soviet Union, Japan, India, China, and the European Space Agency. The course then probes the opportunities for international cooperation and conflict in space, for example, balance of power and war in space. Similarly, course participants discuss the effects of energy via satellite on the Third World and on the distribution of political power. (Continued on the next card.)

The final class sessions consider the future of humanity. In this section, space applications and trends are projected through and beyond the end of the century. With the expansion of satellite technology and applications, private capital and enterprise may become integral ingredients in international operations in space. Large space structures, space stations, and orbital tugs might constitute the skeleton, but the heart of future space operations has to be the industrialization of space, i.e., satellite applications, metallurgy, pharmaceuticals, energy, and resources from space. Finally, we speculate about mining operations on the Moon and the asteroids, the colonization of space‹and on, beyond the horizon of time.

Purposes and Goals of the Course

(1) The course gives students insights into the functioning of politics. Because the course addresses topics of interest to science and engineering students, such students are more likely to retain an understanding of American government.
2) The course facilitates the cross-fertilization of ideas. Several graduate students in other disciplines and at least one professor (aerospace engineering) have attended the classes. Moreover, a handful of juniors and seniors usually take the course as an independent study and write separate research papers on space law and politics. In this course, insight flows from professor to students and vice versa.
(3) The course helps students make informed choices about the space program, as well as other policy questions. At San Jose State University's Careers in Space Symposium, an engineer declared that funding cuts in his field must be the product of black magic. I stressed that such cuts are just the result of politics‹although, in practice, the two may appear to be synonymous. In that context, my students may be "the Sorcerer's Apprentices."

II. Syllabus


University of Texas, Austin
Course: Politics and Outer Space
Instructor: Nathan Goldman

(1) History of Spaceflight

A. U.S.

Readings:
J.C.D. Blaine. "The End of an Era in Space Exploration." American Astronautical Society, 1976, Introduction and pp. 1-8, 33-127.
L. Mandelbaum. "Apollo: How the U.S. Planned to Go to the Moon." Science. Vol. 163, 1969, p. 649.

Recommended:
John M. Logsdon. "The Decision to Go to the Moon." University of Chicago Press, 1970. B.C. Harker. "The Idea of Rendezvous: From Space Station to Orbital Operations, 1895-1951." Technology and Culture. Vol. 15, 1974, p. 373.
E.M. Emme. "Early History of the Space Age." Aerospace History. Vol. 13, 1966, p. 74.

B. Soviet Union

Readings:
Blaine. See pp. 8-30, 133-36.

(2) NASA

Readings:
Richard Hirsch and Joseph J. Trento. "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration." N.Y.: Praeger, 1973, pp. 40-84, 134-48, 164-75.
T. P. Murphy. "Congressional Liaison: The NASA Case." Western Political Quarterly. Vol. 25, 1972, p. 192.

Recommended:
P.R Schulman. "Nonincremental Policy Making: Notes Toward an Alternative Paradigm." American Political Science Review. Vol. 69, 1975, p. 1354.
G.S. Robinson. "NASA's Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements‹A Comprehensive Program for International Cooperation in Space Research." Journal of Air Law. Vol. 36, 1970, p. 729.

(3) NASA and Its Environment

Reading:
Hirsch. See pp. 126-33, 206-207.

A. NASA and Public

Readings:
D.M. Michael. "The Beginning of the Space Age and American Public Opinion." Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 24, 1960, p. 573. Herbert E. Krugman. "Public Attitudes Toward the Apollo Space Program, 1965-75." Journal of Commerce. Vol. 27, 1977, p. 87.

Recommended:
G.A. Almond. "Public Opinion and the Development of Space Technology, 1957-60." Public Opinion Quarterly. Winter 1960, p. 553.

B. NASA and Universities

Reading:
W.H. Lambright and L.L. Henry. "Using Universities: The NASA Experience." Public Policy. Vol. 20, 1972, p. 61.

Recommended:
T.W. Adams and T.P. Murphy. "NASA's University Research Programs: Dilemmas and Problems on the Government-Academic Interface." Public Administration Review. Vol. 27, March 1967, p. 10.

C. NASA and Congress

Readings:
J.R. Kerr. "Congress and Space: Overview or Oversight?" Public Administration Review. Vol. 25, Sept. 1965, p. 185.
T.P. Jahrige. "The Congressional Committee System and the Oversight Process: Congress and NASA." Western Political Quarterly. Vol. 21, 1968, p. 227.

(4) U.S. Law and Space

Readings:
G.D. O'Brien. "Problems Introduced by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958." Hastings Law Journal. Vol. 11, 1960, p. 285. G.D. O'Brien. "Patent Provisions of the NASA of 1958." Journal of the Patent Office Society. Vol. 41, Sept. 1959, p. 651.

Recommended:
S.I. Doctors. "Transfer of Space Technology to the American Consumer: The Effect of NASA's Patent Policy." Minnesota Law Review. Vol. 52, March 1968, p. 789.

(5) Space Law

Readings:
P.C. Jessup and H.J. Taubenfeld. "U.N. Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space." American Journal of International Law. Vol. 53, October 1959, p. 877.
D.M. Arons and P.G. Dembling. "Evolution of the Outer Space Treaty." Journal of Air Law. Vol. 33, Summer 1967, p. 419. R.C. Hall. "Rescue and Return of Astronauts on Earth and in Outer Space." American Journal of International Law. Vol. 63, 1969, p. 197.
R.C. Hall. "Space Law‹International Liability for Space Exploration Activities." Texas International Law Journal. Vol. 7, 1972, p. 523. A. Gorbiel. "Legal Status of Geostationary Orbits: Some Remarks." Journal of Space Law. Vol. 6, 1978, p. 171.

Recommended:
S. Bhatt. "The United Nations Space Treaty and the Freedom of Outer Space." Indian Political Science Review. Vol. 2, 1968, p. 132.
S. Bhatt. "Cosmos 954 and the Law of Outer Space Objects." Journal of Space Law. Vol. 6, 1978, p. 107.
R.E. Hansen. "Freedom of Passage on the High Seas of Space." Strategic Review. Vol. 5, 1977, p. 84.
S. Gorove. "Criminal Jurisdiction in Outer Space." International Law. 1972, p. 313.

(6) International Relations/Comparative

Readings:
F.X. Kane. "Space Age Geopolitics." Orbis. Vol. 14, 1971, p. 911.
R. Jastrow and H.E. Newell. "The Space Program and the National Interest." Foreign Affairs. Vol. 5, 1972, p. 532.
S. Bhatt. "Some Perspectives on Outer Space Exploration by India." Indian Quarterly. Vol. 32, 1976, p 18.
R.F. von Preuschen. "European Space Agency." International and Constitutional Law Quarterly. Vol. 27, 1978, p.46.

Recommended:
L. Sedov. "International Cooperation in Space Exploration." Indian Quarterly. Vol. 32, 1976, p. 18.
L. Sedov. "Chinese 'Secrets' Orbiting the Earth." Spaceflight. October 1977, pp. 355-61. L. Sedov. "Japan Expands Technology Program." Aviation Week and Space Technology. October 1977, pp. 104-108.

(7) Balance of Power/War

Readings:
G.D. Schrader. "Defense in Outer Space." Military Law Review. Vol. 49, 1970, p. 157.
R.J. Zedalis and C.L. Wade. "Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Outer Space Treaty of 1967." California Western International Law Journal. Vol. 8, Summer 1978, p. 454.

Recommended:
N. Brown. "Reconnaissance from Space." World Today. Vol. 27, 1971, p. 68.
L. Freedman. "The Soviet Union and Anti-Space Defense." Survival. Vol. 19, 1977, p. 16. L. Freedman. "War's 4th Dimension." Newsweek. November 29, 1976, p. 46.

(8) Space Applications

Readings:
J.E.S. Fawcett. "Outer Space Benefits." International Behavioral Scientist. Vol. 5, 1973, p. 57.
S.A. Levy. "Intelsat: Technology, Politics and the Transformation of a Regime." International Organization. Vol. 29, 1975, p. 655. H. DeSausser. "Remote Sensing by Satellite: What Future for an International Regime." Amencan Journal of International Law. Vol. 71, October 1977, p. 707.

Recommended:
R.R. Colino. "Intelsat: Doing Business in Outer Space." Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 6, 1967, p 17.
L.R. Caruso. "International Cooperation in the Production of Solar Energy Through the Use of Satellites." Lawyer of the Americas. Vol. 9, February 1977, p. 540.
L.R. Caruso. "Mining in Space." Science Digest. October 1977, p. 35.

(9) The Future

Readings:
J.P. Vajk. "The Impact of Space Colonization on World Dynamics." Technological Forecasting and Social Change.Vol. 9, 1976, p. 361. J.H. Glazer. "Domicile and Industry in Outer Space." Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 17, 1978, p. 67.

Recommended:
Gerard O'Neill. "The High Frontier" Bantam Books, 1978.
Gerard O'Neill. "Space Stations and Habitats: A Workshop." American Society for International Law Proceedings. Vol. 72, 1978, p. 268.
M. Maruyama. "Social and Political Interactions Among Extraterrestrial Human Communities: Contrasting Models." Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 9, 1976, p. 349. Jerome Clayton Glenn and George S. Robinson. "Space Trek." Warner Books, 1980.

Experiences of Five Years of Teaching Space Policy and a Sample Course Syllabus


Michael Fulda
Political Science Department
Fairmont State College

I. Teaching Experiences

Five years ago I began teaching courses on space policy under the guise of general political science courses (such as international problems or a political science seminar). Now courses including space policy analysis are openly labeled in the course catalogue, although formal designation of a space policy course will require review and approval by the department, the curriculum committee, and the faculty senate.

The current course on space policy is a seniors' seminar for social science students that averages an enrollment between ten and thirty. The course presupposes inadequate technological preparation, but a capacity for independent work. The course is structured as an intensive and extensive survey, including lectures, movies, student book reports, telelectures, and field trips.

Course Materials

Bibliographical sources include "The Directory of Aviation and Space Education" (published by the American Society for Aerospace Education), which is among the best available materials. This document includes sections on relevant audiovisuals, books, periodicals, publications, career materials, and organizations.

Three government publications are required reading and provide the factual basis for subsequent policy analyses. These documents can be obtained free of charge.


(1) "The Aeronautics and Space Report of the President" is compiled annually by NASA and constitutes the only report that reviews pertinent activities of most government agencies (such as NASA, Defense, NOAA, Interior, Energy, and Transportation). This is an excellent manual whose only shortcoming is a natural reticence to discuss classified programs.
(2) "The NASA Program Plan" projects future NASA activities and probably is the best planning document produced by any government agency. However, the "Plan" does represent more of a "wish list" than actual Administration funding priorities.
(3) "The Congressional Research Service Issue Briefs" supply the Congressional perspective on space policy. Three briefs are maintained and regularly updated: (a) Space Policy and NASA Funding, (b) Solar Energy from Space Satellite Power Stations, and (c) Space Shuttle.

Three books are required reading for all students. The book package varies every semester in order to take advantage of new publications. After some experimentation, the current book package covers the civilian and the military space programs and space policy formulation:
(1) A number of books deal with the present civilian space program, its potential impact on society, and mankind's future in space. Ben Bova's "The High Road" is an excellent primer on the subject. Other possible texts include: "Update on Space" by Bluth and McNeal, "Doomsday Has Been Cancelled" by J. Peter Vajk, and "Enterprise" by Jerry Grey. The classic "History of Rocketry and Space Travel" by Ordway and von Braun is a useful reference book.
(2) Very few lay books address the military space program. "Confrontation in Space" by G. Harry Stine is probably a seminal book. My supplements include "Readings" from the Space Course of the National War College and the "Military Space Doctrine Symposium" of the U.S. Air Force Academy.
(3) Space policy formulation is a comparatively new field in political science; texts are rare.
"The Decision to Go to the Moon" by John Logsdon is useful but somewhat dated.
"Between Sputnik and the Shuttle" of the AAS History Series is also insightful, particularly if used in conjunction with supplementary readings from "Towards the Endless Frontier" by the House Committee on Science and Technology.

As part of the course assignment, each student is required to write a book report and then make a class presentation. These books are placed on reserve in the library, and each student is responsible for a different book. The selection of books encompasses the entire spectrum of the space program.

I try to show one or more movies in each class. The Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and Comsat all offer the loan of useful films. Additional sources include the "Cosmos" series by Carl Sagan and corporate films. Instructors should be aware that corporate movies are instructive, but occasionally overly hawkish for a political science audience.

Telelectures have been an interesting and useful teaching tool in a number of classes. This method is particularly suitable for a course on space policy, probably because of the subliminal effect of using "high technology." I have found that very busy individuals in the space community usually take a few minutes to talk to my class by telephone, perhaps because space policy is a new field.

Although at first glance West Virginia hardly seems the place to find aerospace activities worthy of a field trip, two options have been available to classes: the Comsat Earth Station at Etam and the National Astronomical Observatory at Greenbank.

The coordination of the various factors described above requires a great deal of curriculum flexibility, particularly because of the varying movie availability and arrival, which rarely coincide with the movies' logical place in the sequence of the course. The same constraint holds true for the availability of guests for the telelectures and their topics of discussion. My usual warning to the class is that the syllabus describes the scope but not the sequence of the course.

The development of this course on space policy has proceeded for the most part on a trial and error basis. This new area of policy studies will require a standard variety of publications comparable to those available in other fields. Above all, space policy will require a survey textbook, accompanied by the usual student handbook, instructors' manual, and a well-integrated package of audiovisual accessories.

II. Syllabus


Fairmont State College
Course: Outer Space Policy
Instructor: Michael Fulda

Introduction

The maiden flight of the Space Shuttle has ushered in a new era by giving mankind routine access to a new environment. The Shuttle will be as significant in the development of space as the sailing ship was in the development of the seas. The use of space resources will spearhead the third industrial revolution. But the growth rate of this capital-intensive industry depends to a large extent on public policy. Now, more than ever, the road to the stars begins in Washington.

This course consists of three parts. The first part deals with the past, present, and future of humans in the new space environment. This part will be covered mainly by films, book reports, class discussions, and‹possibly‹field trips. The second and third parts deal with the formulation of outlooks for space policy. These parts will be covered by government materials, lectures, and telephone conferences.

Requirements

This is an intensive multimedia course. Regular class attendance is strongly encouraged. There will be one monthly assignment and a final examination. The four assignments will each consist of a book review. The first three book reviews will be on the required texts, the other one from the list of recommended texts.

Required Texts

Ben Bova. "The High Road." 1981.
Frederick C. Durant. "Between Sputnik and the Shuttle." AAS History Series, Vol. 3, 1981.
G. Harry Stine. "Confrontation in Space." 1981.
"Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, 1980 Activities."
NASA Program Plan, 1981-1985.
Congressional Research Service Issue Brief:
"Space Policy and NASA Funding."
"Solar Energy from Space‹Satellite Power Stations."
"Space Shuttle."

Recommended Texts

Adelman and Adelman. "Bound for the Stars." AIAA. "Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space."
William Bainbridge. "The Space Flight Revolution."
B.J. Bluth & S.R. McNeal. "Update on Space."
M. Fulda. Selected space articles.
"Face in space: the personalization of planetary exploration."
Anderson campaign space constituency portfolio.
"The political organization of the space constituency."
"The outer space constituency during the 1980 campaign." Jerry Grey. "Enterprise." 1980.
T.A. Heppenheimer. "Toward Distant Suns."
I.S.S.S.S. "The Space Humanization Series."
J. Logsdon. "The Decision to Go to the Moon."
N. Mailer. "Of a Fire on the Moon."
H.E. Newell. "Beyond the Atmosphere."
J.E. Oberg. "Red Star in Orbit."
B. O'Leary. "The Fertile Stars."
G. O'Neill. "The High Frontier."
C. Sheffield. "Earth Watch."
D.D. Smith. "Space Stations: International Law and Policy."
U.S. Air Force Academy. "Military Space Doctrine Symposium."
U.S. House of Representatives. "Towards the Endless Frontier."
U.S. Government. "United States & Soviet Progress in Space."
J.P. Vajk. "Doomsday Has Been Cancelled." 1979.
Aaron Wildavski. "The Politics of the Budgetary Process." 1979.

Telelectures

A number of telephone conversations by means of the telelecture set will be held with private and public officials. It is hoped and expected that the class will ask intelligent questions of the guest lecturers.

Field Trips

Two class outings are planned, travel budget and logistics allowing. One is the Comsat Earth Station at Etam, in Preston County. This station has the highest traffic volume within the Intelsat system. The other is the Greenbank National Observatory in Pocahontas County.

Films

The first part of each class period shall be devoted to the viewing and discussion of space films. About fifty films shall be viewed during the course. These are provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Communications Satellite Corporation, and the Thiokol Corporation. We shall also view some episodes of the "Cosmos" series and the L-5 Society slide show.

Course Content

Part 1: The New Environment

The Past
The V-2. "We aimed for the stars"
Sputnik. "I am Eagle"
Apollo "A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind"

The Present
Communications
Operational Space Systems
Intelsat, Marisat
Domestic, Commercial, and Military Communication Satellites
Military Navigation Satellites
Space Communication Experiments
Experimental Satellites
Communications Research
Direct Broadcast Satellites
Earth's Resources
Inventorying and Monitoring
Earth Resources: Renewable and Non-Renewable Resources,
Geodynamics
Sea Resources
Environmental Analysis and Protection
Weather, Research, and Satellite Operations
Atmospheric and Magnetospheric Research
Space Science
Studies of Sun, Earth, the Planets, the Universe, the Life Sciences Transportation
Space Transportation System: Space Shuttle, Spacelab, Upper Stages, Expendable Launch Vehicles
Space Energy
Energy for Use in Space and on Earth
Space Materials
Materials Processing in Space

The Future

NASA
Space Station, Moon Station, Space Colony
Self-Replicating Robots in Our Solar System

DoD
Global Surveillance
The Big C3 (Command, Control, Communications)
Buck Rogers Is Here (Laser Battle Stations)

NOAA
Doing Something about the Weather
How to Count Whales

Private Enterprise
ConEd and Hilton in the Sky
The Space U-Haul
The Mining of Zero Gravity
Asteroids: How to Retail One Cubic Mile of Nickel

Part 2: Space Policy Formulation

The Law
International Space Agreements
National Space & Aeronautics Act
The Moon Treaty
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

The Government
The President
Office of the Science Adviser
Office of Management and Budget
The Congress
House Authorization and Appropriations Committees
Senate Authorization and Appropriations Committees
Office of Technology Assessment
General Accounting Office
The Executive Departments and Agencies
NASA, NOAA, DoD, DOE, NSF, Interior
Aerospace Corporations
Space End-User Corporations
Labor Unions
Professional and Trade Associations
Research Institutes
Universities and Educators
Citizen Public Interest Groups
Science Fiction Groups
The Public
"The greatest event since creation"
Space, Foreign Aid, and Welfare Chests
The National Air and Space Museum
The Star Trek Movement

Part 3: Space Policy Outlook


Space Race: The Russians and Europe and Japan
Space Station: The Shuttle Must Go Somewhere
Space Symbiosis: The Military/Civilian Affair
Space Business: Texas Wildcat Money in the Sky
Space Science: The Universe Can Wait
Space Politics: Citizens Who Will Not Wait


INDEX

SPACE EDUCATORS' HANDBOOK HOME PAGE

SCIENCE FICTION SPACE TECHNOLOGY HOME PAGE

SPACE MOVIES CINEMA HOME PAGE

SPACE COMICS

SPACE CALENDAR