Commercial Space Development at a Crossroads

United States space policy may be stifling commercial development of Earth’s backyard.

This was the consensus of a workshop on commercial space policy and development co-hosted by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Attending were more than 25 prominent space industry executives and government and academic space experts from around the world.

Keynote speaker Bernard Schwartz set the tone, saying that the U.S. government needs to work with the aerospace industry to make export control regulations efficient, fair, transparent, and responsive. Citing statistics from the Satellite Industry Association, Schwartz, who is chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications Ltd., noted that America’s share of global satellite sales dropped from 64 percent of the $12.4 billion market in 1998 to 36 percent in 2002.

To understand such a dramatic decrease in sales, workshop participants discussed the issues and problems associated with commercial space development. One serious drawback is that when satellite licensing in the United States was transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of State in 1999, commercial satellites were reclassified as munitions and placed under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which poses restrictions on the exchange of technical data.

In addition to limiting the information satellite makers in the United States can export to buyers in other countries, ITAR lacks clearly defined deadlines. “You don’t know when the State Department will issue its decision about your licensing request, so the buyer can’t schedule a launch date very far in advance,” noted Neal Lane, University Professor, senior fellow at the Baker Institute, and professor of physics and astronomy.

George Abbey, visiting senior fellow for space policy at the Baker Institute, said potential customers are more likely to be lured by competitors in European countries where they do not have to worry about these restrictions. “If the U.S. is really going to maintain a leadership role, we have to do some things differently,” he said. “What we achieve in space will be very dependent on our international relationships.”

Most workshop participants agreed that for the United States to remain competitive in the commercial satellite business, satellites should be treated as communication devices, not munitions, and be governed again by the Department of Commerce. Regulations on such technology need to be more specific and include a timetable for the decision-making process so buyers can predict when they will know if a deal can be completed.

Lane addressed concern at the workshop about evidence that the traditional plans to use space for peaceful purposes might be changing. “It’s clear that there has been serious discussion within the government to expand the use of space for military purposes, such as the missile defense initiative, with space considered as the next battlefield,” he said. This strategy would impact the nation’s commercial development of space as well as its ability to cooperate with other nations in astronomy and other areas of space research.

Although the education of future engineers and technicians for the nation’s space programs is another important policy issue, it received less emphasis in this workshop because it was the focus of last year’s Space Policy Summit at the Baker Institute. Abbey, former director of NASA’s Johnson Space Center, noted that the Baker Institute’s continued interest in space policy will likely result in follow-up activities related to discussions at the workshop.

— B. J. Almond