How the Space Race Ushered in an Era of International Cooperation

1

By Astrid Dalton

“We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own.

Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new, terrifying theater of war.”2

- John F. Kennedy

Since the end of the first half of the twentieth century, space travel has been a unifying force for humanity. Twelve years after Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to orbit the earth, six years after the first lunar landing, and twenty eight years into the cold war, an unprecedented event took place: for the first time in history, two spacecraft, each owned by a different country, docked in orbit. This was the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, and the year was 1975. America had already, on its own, docked two spacecraft. So had the Soviet Union. No two nations, however, had ever participated in an international docking. This project was particularly impressive because docking is a phenomenally complex maneuver. It took Buzz Aldrin’s several hundred page dissertation - complete with state-of-the-art computers - to fine-tune docking enough for feasibility. As far back as 1962, according to various declassified CIA documents, NASA was open to collaboration with the U.S.S.R. One in particular states, “Mr. James Webb, NASA Adviser, then expressed his preference for a program for step-by-step progress towards U.S.-Soviet cooperation,” adding that “the Russians desired … space cooperation.”3 This led to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, or ASTP. It was, among other things, a demonstration of the possibility of cooperation between the United States and the USSR on projects of enormous size. Despite the tension between these two nations and their wildly differing ideologies both in space and on the ground, scientists and representatives from both the United States and the Soviet Union were able to mount a project never attempted before, to great success. The Cold War had led to the Space Race. The Space Race had led to a decades-long competition to put a person in orbit, and later, to land a person on the moon. This competition, counterintuitively, led to greater international cooperation, openness, and trust. 

Although the idea of cooperation in space reached the President as early as 1962, it took a long time for these ideas to be acted upon. In “The Race to Develop the Moon,” Rivka Galchen quotes Bruce Hapke, a distinguished scientist and NASA administrator who recalls being told that “when the moon landing was first conceived, it was a strictly political stunt: go to the moon, plant the flag, and come back to Earth.”4 Hapke’s words illustrate the fact that whereas in the public arena, the Moon landings were a display of dominance over the Soviets, behind the scenes the reality was more complex. Instead, they were meant as a show, a message to assert dominance in space over the Soviets. Along similar lines, president John F. Kennedy said in his famous Rice University speech, “this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space … we mean to lead it. […] we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag … Yet [this] can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first.”5 Here, President Kennedy declaims the necessity of being first, referring to the flag, to leadership, and to the hostility of others to justify the goal he sets. The Apollo missions started as a political stunt, but after the initial patriotic fervor wore off, they became more oriented towards science. Nonetheless, space continued to be political. 

Whereas the original Vostok program, as well as the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs were intended as contenders in a competition, many of the programs that followed, starting with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, generally involved the participation of two or more nations. From a public relations standpoint, a mission carried out by a single nation reflected better upon that nation. However, this was not sustainable in the long-term; thus it makes sense that Edward C. Ezell, in “The Partnership: a History of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project,” says that even as President Kennedy encouraged a Moon mission to beat the Soviets, “[he] genuinely wanted to cooperate in [space] with the Soviets,” and wrote to them saying “our countries should cooperate in the exploration of space.”6 

Spaceflight has always been incredibly expensive. As such, it is easier if its economic footprint is spread over several nations. Edward C. Ezell, in “The Partnership,” quotes NASA administrator Tom Paine as having said, in 1969, “the conquest of space [was] a job of such enormity that a new partnership of major nations [had to] be organized with the U.S./U.S.S.R. leaders demonstrating the way.”7 Indeed, whereas both the Americans and the Soviets had their sights set on destinations beyond the orbit of the moon, the Apollo missions alone took more than half a decade and, as stated by the Artemis Project, cost over 35% percent of NASA’s budget (25.4 billion dollars, at the time)8. According to Arnold S. Levine, in his book “Managing NASA in the Apollo Era,” a mission to Mars would have required “funding [to] rise from $4 billion in […] 1970 to $8-$10 billion in 1980.”9 If Congress had approved such a budget plan, NASA’s biennial spending would have been equal to the cost of the entire Apollo program. Clearly, this was not feasible; if ever a mission to Mars were to take place, it could only be done with international participation.

As stated above, the idea of international cooperation in space first reached the President in 1962, and in the thirteen years between then and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, significant progress had to be made. First, the leaders of both nations had to agree to such a mission. Then, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had to decrease. Paine is quoted in “The Partnership”, stating that “the close collaboration which would be required to integrate Soviet experiments into American spacecraft should engender closer working relationships than we have been able to achieve.” He continued, proposing that NASA allow the Soviets to place some of their own experiments on board the Apollo missions, saying, “The participation of Soviet scientists in this and other opportunities will be warmly welcomed. Of course, if the Soviet Academy should find itself in a position to extend similar Opportunities to American scientists, this too would be welcomed.”10 The aim of this proposal was to signal to the Soviets that they were welcome to collaborate with the United States on matters regarding science, and that the reciprocal would be welcomed, as well. For the Soviet Union to send an experiment on board a U.S. spacecraft, mutual sharing of information between the Soviet Academy of Sciences and NASA would have had to occur. Gradually, NASA hoped, this exchange would become natural, and cooperation would become easy.

The readiness to work together by NASA and the Soviet Academy notwithstanding, one roadblock stubbornly remained - namely, nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union’s military influence, confined to the Communist Bloc, was dwarfed by the U.S.’s global reach. This is affirmed in The Partnership’s quote of Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin, “I hope, however, Mr. President, that you will agree that this question can be considered only as a part of the general problem ... of nuclear and rocket weapons ... agree on the prohibition of nuclear and hydrogen weapons.”11 While the two space agencies were comfortable - if not enthusiastic - about cooperating, their respective governments were clashing on the subject of nuclear weapons. Time eroded these issues, and the Apollo-Soyuz Project was able to take place. Although it may seem as though the Soviets were “just pushing an agenda,” rather than genuinely trying to cooperate in space, it is important to note that the original Non-Proliferation Treaty was based on and spearheaded by the Irish12 rather than the Soviets, and Finland was the first nation to deposit its ratification of the Treaty13.

The first international docking in space was quickly followed by the first international handshake in space as the Soviet and American astronauts drifted from their respective modules into the docking adapter. On that day, according to “The Partnership”, Viktor Balashov, an acclaimed Soviet television announcer, quoted the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, saying that “the Soyuz Apollo is a forerunner of future international orbital stations.”14 Indeed, almost twenty years later - in 1995 - the Space Shuttle Atlantis docked to the Russian space station, Mir, in a maneuver which would later become critical for the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). Two years later, the construction of the ISS began, and to this day the station remains one of the greatest, most complex, and most expensive projects ever undertaken by humanity. Contributors include Canada, America, most of the European Union, and the U.S.S.R. It has only been able to grow to this size and complexity because of the multitude of nations that participated in its construction.

The ISS is a point of diplomacy between nations, something many countries have in common. According to Marina Koren in an article written for The Atlantic in 2014, despite tensions between the U.S. and Russia over Russia’s annexation of Crimea, “NASA, … is not worried about the Ukraine crisis.”15 In March 2014, Koren wrote that “on the ground, the United States and Russia might have conflicting interests, but in space, 250 miles above Earth, they get along nicely.”16 These two quotes contrast the atmosphere on earth to that in space or within space agencies - whereas in the case of the former, the U.S. and Russia have tense relationships, the latter case illustrates the relative relaxation between these two nations in the context of space. 

In 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum to leave the European Union. Unfortunately, the pro-exit side won with 51.9% of the vote, and the U.K. will most likely leave the E.U. This will complicate everything from trade, borders with the Republic of Ireland, customs, to immigration and emigration; it will impose, according to economic analyst for the Center for Economic Policy Research, Benjamin Born, “[a] loss of close to 2 percent [of GDP],”17 or about 443 million dollars per week. While Brexit will leave the U.K. in turmoil, one aspect of its international relations won’t be greatly overturned: according to Meghan Bartels in a 2016 article written for Business Insider, “The director of the ESA has also confirmed that Brexit should not affect space programs.”18 Here again, the historical trend of unifying over space is upheld: despite its degrading relationship with the EU, the UK will remain part of the EU’s larger, more expensive projects.

Cooperation in space has contributed to international relations, but it has also saved lives. One particular example of this, detailed in a 1885 document by the Office of Technology Assessment, was the COSPAS/SARSAT system. This simple satellite relay system drastically increased the effectiveness of distress beacons on airplanes and ships. According to the OTA,  “over the course of approximately three years since the first launch in the COSPAS/SARSAT system, over 400 lives have been saved.”19. This system, which was originally created by the Soviet Union and the United States still persists today. In the months of January through December 2015 alone, it helped save 2,185 lives20.

Jeff Kluger, in a 2015 Time article, The Silly Reason the Chinese Aren't Allowed on the Space Station, says that “if there’s one thing the men and women who fly in space will tell you, it’s that once they get there, terrestrial politics mean nothing at all.”21 Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, spaceflight welded together nations with opposing viewpoints. The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs outlines, in its Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, dictates that “In the exploration and use of outer space, States shall be guided by the principle of co- operation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space with due regard for the corresponding interests of other States.”22 The Space Race and the ensuing Apollo-Soyuz Test Project have shown that collaboration on hard tasks can be a route to peace. Today, the International Space Station has proven to be a point of diplomacy and provides a link between otherwise hostile nations.

Now however, the bond which has formed in space from Earth is in danger of snapping. NASA’s current budget proposal directs it to stop direct funding of the ISS by 2025. Recently, there have been calls for NASA to separate American modules from the ISS, and independent calls for Russia to do the same. At the same time, President Trump’s push for a swift return to the moon seems like more of an effort to boost his own ego than anything else. Worse, the current administration has launched a Space Force which could potentially clash with the Outer Space Treaty. 

By forging mutual bonds between the Soviets and Americans, a small number of individuals from both the both sides of the Atlantic were able to help bring about peace for the twentieth century and create a point of diplomacy which persists to this day. It is crucial that we, the generations that inherited the world that those people helped shape, honor their legacy and maintain cooperation in space.