Why do nations choose to initiate a space program?

“Space systems allow people and governments around the world to see with clarity, communicate with certainty, navigate with accuracy and operate with assurance [98]”

Space is no longer the final frontier but a key strategic asset. Unlike the earlier days of the space age, space is steadily becoming a congested, contested and competitive domain. There are currently close to 60 nations and government consortia that own and operate satellites, in addition to numerous commercial and academic satellite operators, as shown in figure 72[98]. Whilst there has been a steady rise in the number of launches, it is worth noting that in 2010 there were a total of 74 orbital launches conducted by eight countries, as shown in figure 73 and 74 [99].

Figure 72: Number of Nations and Government consortia operating in space

Figure 73: Orbital launches per country in 2010 (Source: FAA)

Figure 74: Number of missions launched per country/organization in 2010 (Source: FAA)

Whilst one can consider most countries as space faring nations, only nine possess the technological capability for launching payload. If one traces the origins of national space programs (NSP) in these nine nations one finds that they were all initiated due to a successful combination of the following five factors:

i) Power: or the perception of power is vital for all nations. By developing a NSP, the nation becomes a member of an exclusive club. This membership often comes with fringe benefits like technology transfer, training and development of inter-agency cooperation.

ii) Pride: NSP’s are often used by nations to demonstrate their technological might to the rest of the world. In effect they often become a symbol of national pride.

iii) Politics: Both local and national politics play a crucial role in the development of any space program. Let us consider the United States as an example: The US space program, initiated at the height of the Cold war was more of a political decision than anything else. It was a political stand-off that prompted the US to enter the space race, it was a political decision to put a man on the moon and it is both local and national politics that ensures that

NASA still exists.

iv) Technology: A NSP ensures that there is R&D of the highest standards within the nation. This cutting edge R&D is not only applied to bolster a nations national defence systems but often finds use in various civilian applications. Almost all of the technology developed as part of a space program finds primary use in national defence and military applications. This R&D and the industrial base supporting it are essential tools for a nation to fulfil its commercial, social and defence obligations.

v) Economics: NSP’s and R&D related to space science & technology is definitely not cheap. Its cost can most definitely put a strain on national finances, especially when pursued by developing nations. Current funding for NSP’s runs into billions of dollars; however nations determined to initiate a NSP have to overcome the economic hurdle. One should also remember that nations wishing to assert themselves as space faring, often do so because of nationalistic pride and as such are ready to bear the costs involved despite the financial burden. E.g. In 2003 Nigeria funded its first satellite NigeriaSat-1.

Whilst this was a great feat for Nigeria, it was extremely expensive as the micro-satellite cost approximately $13 million. A significant sum for a country whose annual budget was just over $3 billion and with $30 billion in foreign debt.

The world government expenditure in the space domain totals $71.5 Billion, while commercial revenues in 2010 add up to $189.39 Billion [100]. Space expenditure is comprised of $37 billion in the civil domain, whilst the defence expenditure totals $34 billion. Out of the overall $34 billion in defence expenditure, the United States accounts for almost 82% share at $28 billion. It is worth noting that not all funding is made public, resulting in a degree of uncertainty with regards to the exact figures.

Looking at the global spending in the space domain and budgets of the major space actors, it is interesting to note the rise of China and India as major space powers with a funding of $2.4 billion and $1.25 billion respectively. This puts these emerging actors in the top 10 major space powers as shown in figure 75 [101].

Figure 75: Public space budgets for major space powers in 2010

To better understand the efforts made by countries in the space domain, it is essential to compare their space funding as a fraction of their GDP, as represented in figure 76. It is unwise to draw direct comparisons between two or more space actors that have different economic conditions, like prices, wage levels can often be misleading. If one were to consider the difference between established and emerging actors when we look at space budgets per capita, one would notice that countries like India and China are under-represented due to their socio-economic conditions and their large populations; although they spend a larger percentage of their GDP on space activity compared to some of their counterparts in the west. Figure 77 represents national space budgets as a direct cost to each individual. Based on current trends, it is our opinion that costs associated with programs in the west will reach a point of saturation and then begin to decline, whilst budgets associated with emerging actors shall steadily increase until the point that spin-in and spspin-in-off's from their projects provide the socio-economic benefits that advanced nations enjoy today.

Figure 76: National space program budgets as percentage of GDP

Figure 77: National space program budgets represented as cost per person