SOME POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SPACE-FLIGHT1

By A. W. B. Hester

SUMMARY

A case is presented for international control of astronautical experiments and future operations. The political aspects of this science extend beyond national policies. Long-range, high altitude experiments will inevitably bring encroachment of territorial rights (as at present defined), to endanger life and property and become an issue of international contention and a threat to world peace. A basis for United Nations Organization control is formulated.

POLITICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

Undoubtedly there is now widespread acceptance of the inevitability of space flight, for astronautics now contains a sound basis for the design of satellite vehicles and outer space rockets, and it follows that such projects should be related to a clearly defined national policy for the purpose of co-ordinated scientific investigation by government establishments, interested industrial organisations and associated scientific bodies. In these times of strict and essential security this may well be the policy already adopted but this present article is written in the absence of evidence of any official policy. Inevitably, subsequent development for purposes inter-relating purely scientific aims with national aspirations, whether of beneficial or ill intent, must lead to international problems. Within this broad conception significant political implications are worthy of examination, for these problems cannot be disregarded, irrespective of the nation which gains this particular form of superiority.

The political impact of successful space-flight will be global and clearly demands an early examination of the dangerous potentialities that must arise from the outset. The United Nations Organisation is logically proposed for such action althought it could be initiated by one or more of the greater powers. There can be little hope of any advance from action taken through normal diplomatic exchanges, for well-founded fears or predictions of disaster do not necessarily move governments to seek agreement.

Why then should agreement be sought on such an apparently abstract matter as space-flight, when more readily understood, and far less complicated, issues remain insurmountable? The question is a reasonable one.

For example, ordinary people find it difficult to understand the seeming deliberate obstinacy shown by major powers over international

1 Reprinted from Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Nov.-Dec. 1955, pp. 314-319.

atomic control yet none fail to recognize the dangers which dog humanity and provide a common ground upon which agreement should be achieved the will and right to survive. A fundamental cause of failure to agree is the belated tackling of grave international problems when they have gone beyond the stage of control or easy compromise. Therefore, astronautics should be considered objectively with a view to international control, at the risk of appearing premature and certainly in the face of scepticism.

This may well seem prosaic moralizing, smacking of over-simplification and labouring the obvious; equally the mooting of these problems may be regarded as their creation. Over-simplification is a serious fault and, to avoid criticism, it should be understood that there is no simple solution in dealing with problems the solution of which rests in the embodiment of differing opinions, objections and demands from nations of different political administrations.

If we accept the cause of failure to agree as delay in examining international problems, it will be recognized that delay is caused by jealously guarding any scientific progress which affords strategic advantages, e. g., as in the case of nuclear weapons. Whichever nation tries to seek international agreement in astronautics must face the challenge of another (or others), but only if the opposer has gained an advantage by which the remainder can be dominated. That is the situation which U. N. O. must seek to avoid-not a hypothetical circumstance, but a definition of a common attitude of a dominant power and an objective view of the future.

However, recognition of obstacles cannot reduce their importance nor simplify the manner and means by which they can be resolved. Agreement in principle as a political nicety is relatively easy to obtain, resulting in the limited exchange of valueless, outdated technical data. Unfortunately these superficial gestures do nothing but cloud the ultimate aim and tend to limit the confidence required to allow the free inter-change of information bringing lasting beneficial results by cooperation: allies are blatent non-confidants.

Emphasis on the military importance of space flight is not made here, nor is it intended to elaborate strategic advantages or fantastic probabilities. Rather than encroach on the imaginative field of science fiction, it is mentioned here only to underline the inescapable political problems. If reference to pure politics is necessary it is sufficient to reflect on the fact that national policies must, as they already are, be increasingly subject to broader issues determined by international collectivity within U. N. O.; astronautics is but another social issue.

EVIDENCE FOR CONTROL

What is the astronautical picture internationally? On what evidence are the opinions here given? To the first question the answer is simple the official programmes for astronautics in any country are conspicuously absent. The answer to the second question is also simple, if unconvincing-there is little evidence beyond that contained in the works and lectures of scientists and in a few press reports and broadcasts. Nevertheless such limited evidence permits safe conjecture and by no means reduces the substance of the case for international control of this science.

During a Moscow broadcast a scientist gave a broad picture of the Soviet attitude towards the future of space-flight. A press report of the broadcast, although taken out of context, indicated that the speaker regarded astronautics as a serious science and appeared to have definite ideas on the trend of development. First, an extension of velocity, range and altitude of rockets allied to guided long-range offensive missiles, then the orbital rocket (artificial satellites would logically follow), the Moon circling radio-sounding spaceship, and ultimately, manned spaceships. From this overall conception can be recognized— even with deductions of propaganda values, some serious endeavour in the U. S. S. R. to advance in this field. This is no less sobering than reflections on nuclear experiment possibilities.

In America and Britain limited disclosures have been made with respect to recent guided missile development and some information. has been provided to indicate what is intended in astronautical development. From America comes a White House statement that, within three years, an artificial satellite globe, equivalent in size to a football, will be projected to orbit at 250 miles and is intended to close into the Earth's atmosphere and disintegrate as a meteor. This points to a danger inherent in such experiments the indeterminate location of descent. There are also reports of the Atlas inter-continental missile to be fired into space, achieve 18,000 m. p. h., and which could carry a hydrogen bomb warhead and reach an objective thousands of miles distant. A recent press report of British plans by the chairman of the British Royal Society, Professor H. S. W. Massey, reveals a limited Britain-Australian programme for upper atmosphere research; apparently Professor Massey knew of no plans for satellite experiments. To enable a better appreciation of the case for control it is essential to define certain specific problems, other than those of military significance, closely related to the hazards arising from what must become normal space-flight operations; the problems are simple in cause and definition.

Initial astronautical experiments must be conducted so that the missiles of limited range and duration return to Earth, and in each and every experiment is an inherent hazard. What freedom is permissible and what limitations are to be imposed to avoid accidents in populated areas?

Our world, ever shrinking when measured by time separation rather than geographical distance, becomes an increasingly restricted field over which remotely controlled, unmanned missiles can travel at tremendous velocities which disregard national frontiers. Such experiments could cause incidents to menace an uneasy peace. Little imagination is required to visualize the consequences of a large missile, carrying many tons of propulsive fuel, landing in a large town, a seaport, or village, meeting an air-liner in flight or colliding with an ocean-going liner. This is the type of threat from projectiles not comparable with the immense ships which will eventually be employed in serious space-flight trials.

Guided weapon development, the chrysallis stage of space-flight, coupled with nuclear weapons, is being pursued vigorously and, as velocities and ranges increase, the location of test areas becomes a subject of increasing concern. Already fears and objections have been expressed, since the radioactive effect of vast nuclear experi

Contami

ments cannot be contained within precisely defined areas. nation of territorial waters and the atmosphere have caused disquiet, not only among those who live in relative proximity to the tests, but also among medical men and scientists who are generally reluctant to hinder a new science by airing opinions that might breed prejudice. Assuming atomic power is to be adopted for large rockets, the problem of infringing territorial skies must create misgiving for it will be impossible to avoid overland courses during ascent or descent.

No one

On the assumption that experiments in the near future are to produce ever-increasing hazards it is prudent and natural to attempt to eliminate or at least, minimize the consequences. It might be argued that meteoric collisions with the Earth, being unpredictable and numerous, are more threatening than the possibility of the more predictable man-launched rockets landing in populated areas. loses sleep over meteors, but the weakness in the analogy is that these Acts of God are beyond misconstruction in political terms. Any missile landing in foreign territory, even if no damage is caused, could cause trouble. Every long-range missile-i. e., any missile with a range extending beyond the limits of national origin, must be regarded as a threat to international peace.

OPINIONS--PUBLIC AND POLITICAL

This not-too-distant threat (which some may dismiss as fanciful) poses the case to be argued on the grounds of necessity. The wisdom of engaging in ambitious, expensive and, to all intents, non-productive projects, is open to question, for any progressive step in science is at some time opposed on one or all of three issues-moral, economic and political. Despite the widespread acceptance of the certainty of space-flight within the next decade, opposition is inevitable. Opposition from the public may arise from fear of the hazards, the military potentialities and, the affect on taxation by the tremendous expenditure involved. Public opposition may not easily be overcome, for the conflict of opinion may germinate the seeds of dangerous political exploitation, as now seen in the nuclear bomb controversy. Politicians, sincerely or otherwise, will not ignore the public conscience and cannot avoid being imbroiled in the camps of ayes and noes. Challenges against the large appropriations, necessary for any worthwhile project, will be loud and strong and the magnitude of these appropriations must, of course, be determined by the prevailing economic conditions. No tax-payer, unless acquainted by a knowledge of the real values of research, can look back in regard to the "Brabazon" and "Princess" with anything but regret for the great cost involved. Opposition has, not unnaturally, grown against "white elephant" projects where the cost involved is irrecoverable, thus making serious research appear extravagant scientific adventures.

FORMULA FOR CONTROL

No matter how strong the opposition, the achievement of spaceflight will be realized. Although these present views omit the scientific problems of space-flight and emphasize issues which may seem irrelevant and superfluous to the serious scientist, proper control is

essential to national and international security without impeding development. It is believed that international control can, in fact, accelerate development. Accepting international agreement for control of astronautic experiments and development, U. N. O. should draft a plan offering a basis for exploratory discussions between immediately interested nations. Such a basis could be formulated from:

(a) Acceptance of the inevitability of space-flight.

(b) The acceptance that space-flight is a medium enabling a single nation to threaten all others.

(c) Recognition of the hazards to persons and property and the necessity to control and place limits on astronautical and longrange missile experiments.

(d) Determination of a unified policy to embrace all nations to ensure the practical and beneficial application of astronautics. From these fundamental points a conference could proceed to resolve in reasoned anticipation, conflicting opinions and define co-operative aims, eradicate suspicion and allay fear in the mind of mankind by restriction or prohibition of the military application. Idealistic hopes as these cannot be compared favourably with the realism of dogma and avowed disagreement associated with recent international conferences. The difficulties are manifest and the conference envisaged would be protracted, but under no circumstances valueless. A closer examination of the broad issues reveals several thorny problems enumerated below:

(a) Constitution of the U. N. O. commission for the co-ordination of research and development of astronautics.

(b) Methods for pooling information and the interchange of scientists and technicians.

(c) Freedom of international development and limitation of private ventures.

(d) Control and co-ordination of operations. Under this consideration would be taken schemes for notification of countries to be traversed. Details would include trajectory, velocity and duration for outward and homing flights.

(e) Methods for the reduction of operational hazards. Necessary restrictions and precautions would cover limitations of flights within defined territorial atmosphere, pole to pole sea traversing trajectories from ice-cap fringe bases, barometric control for systems and introduction of safeguards against radio-active contamination.

(f) The prohibition of war-head explosives and destructive material other than propulsive fuels.

(g) Agreement on joint action by U. N. O. against a defaulting nation. Such defaults might be:

(1) Mis-application of astronautics for military purposes. (2) Refusal to disclose information within the terms of the internationally agreed policy.

(3) Deliberate violation of a foreign territory by disregard of internationally agreed safeguards and procedure. Clearly the path to agreement is strewn with obstacles, but nothing can be achieved by attempting to prohibit development. Astronautics promises unprecedented discovery and frightful, far reaching ex