Paper Session II-A - Expanding the Commercial Space Arena: The Western Pacific Rim States as Competitors-Markets

Space commerce over the past decade has become a field in transition as comsat markets exponentially expand with prospect for further growth in other areas also very positive. As part of this change process, new competitors are stepping forward. The Russian Federation successor state to the former Soviet Union’s space program represents one facet of that new challenge. Its competitiveness grows directly from its historic status as one of the two first space powers. A more intriguing situation is developing in the Western Pacific Rim states, there space-related activities span the spectrum from fairly comprehensive space programs to states just emerging into the space applications arena. This paper explores these changes and discusses their implications for the United States commercial space effort

Paper Session III-C - Evaluating Strategies for Transfer of Government Space Technology

Transferring space technology from the public sector to the private has been the hallmark of American space policy since its earliest inception. This pattern reflected early launch technology and an already existing structure for private-public cooperation as embodied in the NACA, predecessor of NASA. Dramatic changes are occurring in the space industry environment, transfer of government space technology becomes an even more critical issue. This paper briefly examines several methods by which such technology is transferred from the public sector to the private. One must note that a reverse process also occurs, private to public. Attention will be upon privatization as a transfer strategy since it is politically very attractive but we will also discuss briefly direct transfer, developmental assistance, and spinoffs (indirect technology transfer)

Paper Session I-B - Making State Spaceports Economic Change Agents

Space transportation truly begins at the launch pad where the vehicle arrives for final processing prior to flight. Production of the launch vehicle and its payload likely occurred elsewhere. The question of who actually controlled the spaceport and its facilities was not a particularly controversial one or even a question at all until the 1990s. It is not controversial today but the question has become who should run the federal spaceports? Until that time, national security concerns drove the field along with the even more potent force of institutional inertia. Having the federal government specifically the military be responsible for spaceport operations was both logical and necessary since the early facilities were built for the purposes of ballistic missile testing. That situation has changed at least rhetorically more recently with the increasing internationalization of the space marketplace. Internationalization contains within it the kernel of enhanced competition – a dramatic change for the space transportation field. For years, national security and other considerations made the space transportation industry a series of nationalistic enclaves (McLucas, 1991). This situation usually still exists regarding any government payloads that normally fly upon national flag launchers. Since 1991, private payloads have been increasing their proportion of the market (despite some short term downward fluctuations as in 2001), meaning that space transportation is now increasingly driven by cost factors rather than simply national preference especially when the satellite consortium purchaser is international. Competition therefore becomes the new paradigm through which potential users look for the greatest value for the expenditure. As part of this new marketplace, state spaceports are becoming increasingly visible as potential players in the space transportation field. In this paper, state spaceports are described in terms of the forces driving change, the factors inhibiting their success, and a brief assessment of the future shape of state policy if long term success is desired

The American Bubble: International Traffic in Arms Regulations and Space Commerce

International space commerce in the United States (U.S.) has entered into a period of great uncertainty regarding its current and future competitiveness and marketability of its products. This question arises because the U.S. with regard to space commerce remains frozen in a posture established first during the Cold War. The concern then was that no critical technologies be made available to U.S. enemies and their fellow travelers. The former were obvious while the latter were more problematic since that group also included states with which the U.S. wished to establish more positive relations including international trade. The mechanism used to monitor and control that trade process is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) regime applied by the U.S. Department of State. The issue is whether ITAR is still of the same value in a post-Cold War world and whether their enforcement might take a different approach. As will be discussed, changes in their application began especially toward the Cold War’s end, but those changes were largely reversed due to a combination of domestic politics and international uncertainty. The question is whether the ITAR as presently implemented meets the strategic interests of the U.S. or is their unintended effect one of undermining the U.S. ability to influence international trade with regard to space technologies. For other categories related to arms, the ITAR supports U.S. policy objectives even though their application is often characterized by excessive slowness and rigidity in application

Judicial Review and the Supreme Court: An Accelerating Curve

The power of judicial review of federal statutes in American constitutional history has the mystique of the Hammer of Thor. Striking a congressional act down as violative of the United States Constitution has attracted the interest of several generations of constitutional scholars