Space Race Brief

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin
Space Brief
To fulfill the purpose of space exploration and to make it more beneficial, the world
must cooperate instead of competing. ~Yuki David Takahashi
Table of Contents
Space Brief.................................................................................................................................................1
International Space Station....................................................................................................................2
Space Race............................................................................................................................................3
+X: ..............................................................................................................................................3
1: Cooperation aided the space race.............................................................................................3
2 Turn: Competition was harmful to space exploration...............................................................4
3 Impact Turn: Results of space race were pointless...................................................................5
4: Future cooperation will be beneficial......................................................................................6
1{7} Space Brief: Space Brief

International Space Station

ISS is a cooperative effort
The European Space Agency, “International Space Station Legal Framework”, 24 October 2008,
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAH7O0VMOC_iss_0.html
The International Space Station is a co-operative programme between Europe, the United States,
Russia, Canada, and Japan for the joint development, operation and utilisation of a permanently
inhabited Space Station in low Earth orbit. The legal framework defines the rights and
obligations of each of the countries and their jurisdiction and control with respect to their Space
Station elements.
ISS cooperation beneficial

James Oberg (NBC News space analyst), “Astronaut explains secret of space station’s success: It’s
actually two stations in one, says one-time resident Susan Helms”. MSNBC May 9, 2005.
[Susan] Helms [a veteran NASA astronaut who worked on the ISS] pointed out that the space
station comprises modules designed by NASA and its U.S. contractors, as well as modules
designed by the Russian Space Agency and its industrial partners.
“It's essentially two space stations joined together by a hatch, and its overall redundancy by being a 'two-in-one' design has been its saving
grace,” she said of the international space station. “Each space station has a significantly different design philosophy, but each one is also
capable of many functions that can 'carry' the other one simultaneously.”
As a result of this design philosophy, she continued, “by having such different approaches, each space agency ultimately played to different
strengths of their system designs, and in effect, created a larger 'system of systems' that can manage a wide variety of contingencies.”
Attitude control — orienting the station in a desired posture as it circles Earth — is an example of a critical function that is independently
enabled by both American and Russian hardware. This function “is incredibly important to power supply and thermal control,” she said, and it
“can be controlled by either the U.S. gyrodynes or the Russian propulsion system.”
“The beauty of the [American] gyrodynes is that they require no consumables,” she elaborated, “but the beauty of the Russian system is that it's
incredibly reliable and built for robustness. Neither system is perfect, but managing them in a synchronized fashion has created an overall
capability that is greater than the sum of the parts, in the face of the unexpected.”
“I remember when all three computers on the U.S. segment simultaneously experienced a generic
failure, due to something the designers had not foreseen”…Since the Russian half of the station had its own systems for these same services,
the temporary loss of the U.S. systems was only a nuisance and not a crisis. “The Russian segment picked up the slack in
managing environmental life support and attitude control, and the situation was therefore never
perceived by the crew as life-threatening, even with a total U.S. computer failure,” Helms said.
2{7} Space Brief: International Space Station

Space Race
+X:
What is the next thing to explore?
[If Mars: that's a really big gap. Need evidence to show competition would get us there. If don't
know, well, that's the problem, there is no obvious next step, thus it doesn't look like we're
getting anywhere.]
Was getting to the moon a major goal of the space race?
[Insert moon wasteful and irrelevant]
How did the NASA's technological developments get to ordinary people/companies?
[Collaboration with private industry]
1: Cooperation aided the space race

Cooperation within the space race
Roald Sagdeev, (Proffessor of Physics at the University of Maryland, former head of the Russian Space
Research Institute, now director of the University of Maryland’s East-West Space Science Center.),
“United States-Soviet Space Cooperation during the Cold War”, NASA, 2008,
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
“Despite the continued space competition between the United States and U.S.S.R., Khrushchev
sent Kennedy a letter raising the possibility of space cooperation on a modest level after John
Glenn became the first American to orbit Earth on Feb. 20, 1962. That led to two rounds of
discussions between NASA’s Deputy Administrator Hugh Dryden and Soviet academician
Blagonravov. An agreement led to the opening of cooperation in three areas: 1) the exchange of
weather data from satellites and the eventual coordinated launching of meteorological satellites;
2) a joint effort to map the geomagnetic field of Earth; and 3) cooperation in the experimental
relay of communications. This link became a primary forum for subsequent U.S.-U.S.S.R.
interaction on space.”
NASA allowed for cooperation, unlike USSR.

Roald Sagdeev, (Proffessor of Physics at the University of Maryland, former head of the Russian Space
Research Institute, now director of the University of Maryland’s East-West Space Science Center.),
“United States-Soviet Space Cooperation during the Cold War”, NASA, 2008,
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
“The civilian nature of NASA, legislated in the 1958 Space Act, made it possible for the
American researchers to collaborate on and disseminate scientific advances, an opportunity
envied by many of us Soviet scientists.”
3{7} Space Brief: 1: Cooperation aided the space race

2 Turn: Competition was harmful to space exploration
Competition destroyed excitement for space science.

Yuki David Takahashi (Physics graduate from Caltech, with MSc from University of Glasgow, currently
pursuing PhD at Berkeley), “Cooperation: The Only Choice of Mankind as Space Explorer”, 26 May
1995, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/1991_2001/cooperation.html
Being directly interested in space science is the most obvious way to utilize the uniqueness of that region, but that interest is difficult to keep up
if people compete in exploration. Admittedly, American people were very interested in the space program
during the space race when the United States and the Soviet Union competed for the Moon landing. On televisions and radios many
watched and listened to every launching of a spacecraft to make sure it was successful. Soon, however, people in both
countries were so concerned about the race that they were more enthusiastic about the
competition than actual space science. If racing is their interest, they do not need to choose expensive space expedition as
their arena. Exploring “space” is worth it only when it involves something unique to “space”. Race field is certainly not a feature of space.
Moreover, some analysts say that because the American people viewed the space program as just a race
with the Soviets, they lost their interest in space once the Apollo 11 ended the race by landing on
[the] Moon (Blonston G1). The competition did not achieve the purpose of space exploration because
it eventually destroyed people’s excitement toward space science.
Secrecy caused by competition, hurts efficiency and cost.

Competition is destructive: competitors never help each other but wish for each other’s failure and sometimes even damage each other.
During the
Then why do people compete? “For no physically or socially beneficial reason” is the answer and experiences show why.
Moon race, both the United States and the Soviet Union had to take extra care to keep as much
information secretive as possible. In Men from Earth by Buzz Aldrin who is the second astronaut to land on Moon, he said
Americans had to guess the Soviet’s technology and plans from their public statements as well as radio intercepts of their spacecraft
If they had not been racing, they could have asked the others directly for these
communications (97).
information instead of disgracefully tapping wires with much waste of time and money.
4{7} Space Brief: 2 Turn: Competition was harmful to space

exploration
Competition risked astronauts' safety.

[Buzz] Aldrin also described how the goal of the Soviet space program was simply to beat
Americans with the “firsts” even if they had to lower their safety. For the first woman in space, the Soviets
hastily selected several women and put them into intensive training. Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space, was only a factory worker
when the Soviet prime minister, Nikita Khrushchev, heard that America
who was good at skydiving. Also
had plans to send two men together into space soon and three men later, he instantly decided to send three
cosmonauts into space at once. To hurry, the engineers had to modify a previous spacecraft
designed only for one crew member; and consequently the three cosmonauts could not even
wear space suits in the small capsule (Aldrin 109-110). Although the three cosmonauts were able to come back alive, the time
wasted on the mission greatly interrupted the development of the more important Soyuz spacecraft. Aldrin said the Soviets “had won another
meaningless propaganda victory” (111).
The pressure from competition can make people risk even human
lives and still gain essentially no profit.
3 Impact Turn: Results of space race were pointless

No scientific reason to race to the moon.
President John F. Kennedy
“Everything that we do ought to really be tied into getting onto the Moon ahead of the Russians.
...otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money ...the policy ought to be that this is the
top-priority program of the Agency, and one of the two things, except for defense, the top
priority of the United States government. ... But we’re talking about these fantastic expenditures
...and the only justification for it, ...to do it in this time [then estimated late 1967 or early 1968]
or fashion, is because we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind, as we did by a
couple years, by God, we passed them.”
Moon race “irrelevant.”

many people criticize the wasteful competition in the Moon race. Thomas Hughes, a
Today,
specialist in sociology of science at the University of Pennsylvania, said, “The Moon shot didn’t
have much bearing on other pursuits because it was basically irrelevant. It was an achievement that was not
dedicated to a social need” (Blonston G1). Since the Moon race has brought about numerous inefficiencies and dangers, space explorers must
never repeat such competition if they are to make everyone’s life more exciting through benefits of exploration.
5{7} Space Brief: 3 Impact Turn: Results of space race were

pointless
4: Future cooperation will be beneficial
Participants of cooperative efforts consider them more worthwhile.

Actualparticipants of collaborative projects can best confirm the superiority of cooperation. In 1985,
ten years after the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, three American astronauts and two Russian
cosmonauts who participated in the docking came together to call for further cooperation and
for joint missions to Mars (Booth 96). Th[e]is docking was the only large-scale collaboration
between the United States and Russia until recently despite its peaceful result. No single person who was
involved in the project probably felt it was a worthless enterprise. In February this year, the American space shuttle
and Russia’s space station performed a rendezvous and all the astronauts repeated happy comments. "It's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen
in space," said James Wetherbee, commander of the shuttle, who had been in space before this mission. Alexander Viktorenko, commander of
the space station, said it was "almost like a fairly tale... almost too good to be true" (Drago A8). These astronauts' impressions show that working
together is an exciting venture.
Cooperation improved Europe's Ariane space shuttle

Ariane [The European Space Agency's shuttle equivalent], anyhow, has been a great success
because collaboration among the European nations has enabled outstanding efficiency.
Establishment of cooperation, for example, allowed ESA to manufacture the rocket’s solid fuel
on launch site, reducing the Ariane’s cost to $100 million per launch compared to the U.S. space
shuttle’s $500 million (Luxner 13). By 1990, only 3 years after the Ariane’s approval, the launcher had
already returned more than 3 times the investment made to develop it (Rycroft 329). By 1991, Arianespace,
the ESA’s manufacturer of Ariane, had captured as much as 50% of the global commercial launch market (Worshop 174). ESA is now the third
largest space agency next to those of the United States and Russia, but it is probably the most hopeful because of its openness to cooperate for
maximum efficiency.
Collaborative comet-monitoring more efficient.

Tons of other collaborative
efforts, of course, have been successful. When the Comet Halley approached
Earth in 1986, the Soviet Union, Japan, Europe, and the United States at first sent spacecraft
individually to investigate the comet. Because these nations realized that the profit would be the
greatest by operating the missions together, they set up an international agency called the Inter-Agency
Consultative Group to observe the comet cooperatively (Beaudan 37). Instead of working separately for exactly the same results,
cooperation would complete[d] the same job much more efficiently and would make available even further
observations.
6{7} Space Brief: 4: Future cooperation will be beneficial

Cooperation would allow nations to use their specialties to everyone’s benefit.

collaborative efforts are available and that the efforts will contribute to
Finally, the current practicality confirms that
fulfillment of the purpose of space exploration. Russia has far more experience in physiology of
long-duration space flights than the United States. Richard Thomas, director of the Center for Strategic Technology at
Texas A & M University argued against cooperation saying, “Yes, they [Russians] have a lot of experience. But it’s like so much of their science.
The fruits of that work are very slim indeed. The United States, while far behind in launches and practical space applications, maintains a
distinct technological advantage” (Warren 9). This is absolutely not a good reason for not cooperating, but it
is an excellent reason
to do cooperate instead. Russia can share its accumulated scientific results with the world and the
United States can lead in turning these results into more substantial advantages for the benefit of
all people.
…
Welcoming Russia in the space station program would surely reduce the world political tension,
too, multiplying the benefit of cooperation.
Competition focuses on victory, cooperation, on everyone’s benefit.

The only option the
nations of the world have is to cooperate if they are to make everyone’s life more
exciting through the uniqueness and benefits of space exploration. Today, competition is out of concern. The
purpose of competitors shifts from actually exploring space to just “victory”. Competition is destructive
and it hardly ever achieves high efficiency. In addition, it never shares the excitement with everyone. In the future, competition must remain out
of concern. Daniel Goldin, administrator of NASA, said early this year when the spacecraft of the United States and
Russia performed the collaborative rendezvous, “This is about cooperation, not confrontation. Instead of aiming
weapons at one another, we can work on peaceful projects to benefit all the people of Earth”
(Neuharth A11). This indeed is the goal of humankind today, and everyone on Earth must work on it since it is for benefit of all. Today, so much
of confrontation is between nations, but if there were no national distinctions on Earth, problems would be significantly less. The nations of the
world must move toward global unification. To achieve this, cooperation in space will be an ideal approach since there exists no national border
from the first place. The world must start working together now to gain as much benefit and excitement as possible and not waste any of the
opportunities and time. Human beings never need to fear cooperating. The result will never be negative, but always positive as cooperation is
always constructive.
7{7} Space Brief: 4: Future cooperation will be beneficial

Space Race Brief

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Space Race Brief

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

1{7} Space Brief: Space Brief

International Space Station

ISS cooperation beneficial

2{7} Space Brief: International Space Station

1: Cooperation aided the space race

NASA allowed for cooperation, unlike USSR.

3{7} Space Brief: 1: Cooperation aided the space race

2 Turn: Competition was harmful to space exploration

Competition destroyed excitement for space science.

Secrecy caused by competition, hurts efficiency and cost.

4{7} Space Brief: 2 Turn: Competition was harmful to space

Competition risked astronauts' safety.

3 Impact Turn: Results of space race were pointless

Moon race “irrelevant.”

5{7} Space Brief: 3 Impact Turn: Results of space race were

4: Future cooperation will be beneficial

Participants of cooperative efforts consider them more worthwhile.

Cooperation improved Europe's Ariane space shuttle

Collaborative comet-monitoring more efficient.

6{7} Space Brief: 4: Future cooperation will be beneficial

Cooperation would allow nations to use their specialties to everyone’s benefit.

Competition focuses on victory, cooperation, on everyone’s benefit.

7{7} Space Brief: 4: Future cooperation will be beneficial

Você também pode gostar