The Overlapping of Space Power Theory and the United States' Space Policies From the Formation of NASA to the Development of SDI, 1958-1983

...

1.1 Tenets of space power [7]

- According to the space power theory,“it can be applied as a direct benefit to the owner, through pursuit of diplomatic, civil and military applications. More and more such applications are becoming cost-effective even on their own merits alone.”

- Secondly, “space power can be used to encourage and reward other global players. The opportunity to piggyback one player’s space efforts onto existing and easily shared/transferred capabilities of another has measurable economic value”

- Thirdly, “space power can be used to dissuade targeted players. Discouraged and unwanted behavior can result in termination of valuable joint activities, withholding of accustomed information and other services, or isolation from the international space community”

- Fourthly, “space power can be utilized to avoid punishment from other players aimed at the owner of the space power elements. Each user seeks as great an immunity as it can obtain from dependence on other nations for key space power elements, but only those with the broadest infrastructure can achieve this and exploit the freedom of action it provides”

- Fifthly,“space power can be used to project national influence, both through the cultivation of dependency among other global players and through control of the agenda of international discussions of cooperative projects, and treaties. One nation’s space power can also significantly influence the internal space policies (and other policies as well) of another player by forcing symmetric developments or by discouraging ambitions for competition or confrontation.”

- Finally, it “can be used to apply force, both in space, from space, or through space, and to resist the use of force against oneself.”

To what extent does space power theory accurately explain U.S space policy from the formation of NASA to the development of SDI? To answer this question, four of these methods will be linked to a space policy which will then be assessed through their results. The overlapping policies included in this investigation are NASA’s Creation, Program Corona, Apollo 11 and the Strategic Defense Initiative. It is important to consider that the second and third tenets haven’t been assessed since they could not be linked efficiently to any of the U.S’s space policies. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was considered for the second tenet, however, its lack of economical benefits demonstrated a deviation from the tenet. As for the third tenet, it could not explain any space policies found. This is an important factor that will be further addressed in the conclusion. However, already now, we have determined that space power theory does not accurately explain the U.S’ space policies.

2.0 Investigation:

---------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 First use: NASA’s Creation

For a starter, the first key word that defines the first use of space power is “self-benefit”. According to Oberg’s first method, in order to benefit the nation, the country would have to use diplomatic, civilian or military applications, which, results would often be worth the money spent. One action that the United States took that relates to this theory is the creation of NASA, a civilian lead space agency. As a matter of fact, with the Space Act of 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was already directed to conduct programs and in depth studies that were to benefit the country in many sectors. According to Bauer, 1969, several types of program impacts have been classified into five different types; economic, technological, scientific, managerial and social.[8] Of these, the economical sector is one of the most beneficial for the United States, and also the least bias to assess as it is statistics based. Therefore, it will be the one that will be investigated.

NASA’s programs may affect the total national economy. As evidence, a study made by Midwest Research Institute in November 1971 determined, through an econometric approach that, “each dollar spent on research and development leads to an income of slightly more than $7.00 in gross national product over the eighteen-year period following the expenditure.” They concluded that “$25 billion spent on civilian space research and development during the 1959-69 period returned $52 billion billion through 1970”.[9]

Another study was achieved at Chase Econometric Associates in 1975. This time however, instead of analyzing the relationship between research and development expenditures and technology-induced increases in GNP, Chase used simulations of an input-output model developed at Maryland’s University. They determined that if $1 billion of federal money is used for nondefense programs of NASA, the transfer would increase manufacturing output by 0.1% in 1975, which is equivalent to $153 million 1971 dollars. What’s more, the second part of their study concluded that the social rate of return on NASA research and development expenditures was 43%, whereas Midwest’s was 33%.[10]

This difference of results demonstrates that both studies were not the most accurate as they had to make assumptions in order to get data. For example, Midwest’s study assumed that the changes in gross national product “could be attributed to technological progress”[11]. The simple use of the uncertain word “could” demonstrates that we should be skeptical of their research. As for the Chase’s study, their method was much more accurate as they used relevant and accurate simulation methods that were developed at a trustworthy university. However, their first part of their research was made under the assumption that the federal budget remains constant, which is risky as the budget changes annually. As a matter of fact, if we compare the budget that NASA had in 1958 and 1980, there is a difference of 13,6$ 2014 billions.[12]

Although, despite the difference in results, both studies have still concluded that NASA did have a positive outcome. Therefore, the instauration of a civilian lead space agency did result to an economical growth, as concluded Chase’s study, where they confirmed “the significant positive effects of NASA research and development expenditures on national productivity and employment levels”[13]. This concludes that the instauration of NASA lead to a self-benefit of the country, and so, its creation is a demonstration of the first tenet of space power theory.

2.2 Fourth Use: Program Corona

Furthermore, the fourth use of space power