Category Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?

The future imaginative exercise is especially critical in areas of security studies, international politics and for judging advancements in technology trajectory. This is because in all such arenas, the states have to grapple with the fast-paced nature of the winds of change. For states, it is important to invest in the process of long­term perspective planning. This allows them to plan for their future. Such planning is an extremely challenging task, and various scientific techniques could be used for this purpose. Such process for predicting the future could play a useful role towards developing basic appreciation of the immediate and the long-term futures. This chapter endeavours to look at the future of space programmes of few important Asian states. It identifies and examines major drivers in connection with growth of space programme and develops futuristic scenarios.

Race is essentially a contest of speed. It is about one-upmanship, it is about beating the opponent/s, and it is about demonstrating that you are better than others. Race is all about dominating, winning and signifying ‘power’. From sociology to sports and science to security, the connotation of the word ‘race’ remains the same, but only the context changes. In the realm of international politics, the race is essentially viewed as a competition amongst nation-states. Essentially, technology plays a dominating role in this race and helps to prove the superiority of the state. Particularly, the military technologies play a major role in deciding the power equations.

The arms race is about the build-up of military hardware leading to the competition amongst the states to demonstrate their strength.

‘The term arms race has been used since the 1850s to describe periodic competitions between states to shift (or preserve) the balance of power between them by modernizing their weaponry and increasing the magnitude of various arms stocks. However, it was not until the end of World War I that arms races were viewed as a special pathology of interstate behavior that required explanation. At a loss to account for a war whose duration and horror seemed inexplicable by the logics of political or strategic calculation, both politicians and the public seized upon the idea that arms competitions could assume a deterministic dynamic that made war inevitable. It followed that the best way for states to ensure that conflicts of this sort would not occur in the future was to regulate the building of armaments or, as it is known today, to practice arms control’.1 During the twentieth century, the term arms race was mainly referred to the build-up of military weapons by the then two superpowers, the erstwhile USSR and the USA. It was mainly discussed from the standpoint of their nuclear arms race.

In early days, the concept of arms race was more about the navel supremacy. With the advent of airpower, the focus widened mainly during the twentieth century. The idea of nuclear deterrence could be viewed as the ‘game changer’ and has brought the level of competition to a new height. All such investments into military [340]

hardware helped the states to achieve better sense of security over their opponents leading to a ‘security dilemma’. Particularly, over a period of the last two centuries, a pattern could be indentifled indicating how the developments in technologies have impacted the nature of arms race. The race probably started with naval technologies and the growth of sea power. In fact, land forces have been the part of combat almost since the evolution of the warfare. However, tank battle and artillery took some time to gain a global focus. For the last couple of years, various additional military platforms are also being viewed as an instrument to induce the opponent. Aerial platforms and the conception of airpower were followed by ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons boosting the race further to incredible levels. The flexible and versatile nature of airpower and missiles allowed the states to increase their strategic reach making nuclear weapons more relevant. The states understood that the increase in the inventory of aerial platforms particularly the combat aircrafts allows them different beneflts including deterrence. Simultaneously, the nature of warfare has also altered signiflcantly over the years with aerial warfare gaining prominence. Presently, the twenty-first century is witnessing an additional dimension of warfare called the fourth dimension of warfare which is all about the space warfare. Along with this, cyber warfare has also been viewed as a new dimension of warfare. Hence, the issue is ‘if the military warfare has evolved from land and sea warfare to aerospace warfare would it be prudent to assume that the arms race would enter or has already entered into the space domain too’?

The concept Space Race is not new and was even a reality during the Cold War era. In fact, it could be said to have started with the launch of the first satellite on October 4,1957, by the erstwhile USSR. The USA had responded within a year with the launch of its first satellite Explorer I. The real race could be said to have begun when Yuri Gagarin (1961) visited the space. Within few years (1969), the USA achieved a major success with the manned visit to Moon, and the rest is history. For more than three decades, both the superpowers were involved to outclass each other in various actions in space. It was seen as a very closely fought race with the USA having a slender lead particularly in the post-1970s period.

The question is why the then superpowers were keen to engage into the space race? There could be various motives behind this, and prestige could be the main reason. Space also could have given them the opening to invent new technologies which has both civilian and military utility. Visual manifestations of various feats achieved in the space arena are extremely overpowering. This also could have forced these states to accord a special status to the efforts in space. On the other hand, the concept of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) could also be indirectly linked to the notion of space race. MAD is about any military conflict amongst the nuclear weapon states escalating to a nuclear war leading to the obliteration of various warring sides. For a state, all this required making significant increase in the number of nuclear weapons and to keep on matching the opponent by entering into the numbers game. But, the sense of just competing with each other by increasing the number of nuclear weapons was probably getting monotonous! Recognising that such investments are infertile beyond a point, the then superpowers could have

started to look for alternatives to keep the animosity alive during the Cold War era and probably found the rivalry in space as one of the means to demonstrate the primacy.

High expectations from the future (in space territory) could have been one more reason for many to believe that race amongst spacefaring nations is possible and essential. Over the years, many space ‘beliefs’ have gained weight which actually does not depict reality. The overall initial achievements in space arena by the then superpowers have fashioned great expectations for the future. Such expectations have been extrapolated to a soaring level without giving due cognisance to technological realities and challenges. This has made many believe that creation of Moon bases, Martian colonies, easy space travel, asteroid mining, building of solar power stations in orbit, etc. is easily achievable and states could attain great power status by building space empires. Naturally, the thought of building space empires is leading to a quest for race.

To analyse the nature of space race in Asia, it is important to value some of the above-mentioned global dimensions in regard to postulation of the space race.

The relevance of dual-use utility of space technologies is not hidden. Particularly, post-1991 Gulf War various states have started using space as an instrument while deciding on their strategic priorities and interests. Naturally, this opens a window for the states to use space race as an instrument for power portrayal. Before analysing the space race ‘formulation’ in Asian context, it is important to appreciate certain ground realities. It is important to appreciate that the notion of ‘race’ has evolved over the years. In any form of a space race, the game of one-upmanship develops a tendency to interpret the opponent’s behaviour as a demonstration of growing hostility. This leads to action-reaction pattern of behaviour and fails to take into account the implications of one’s own behaviour. Over a period of time, various states in general have understood the perpetuity of their actions and various multilateral arms reduction treaties. Today, certain amount of rational strategic calculations have been made by nation-states before blindly aping the opponent. Particularly, the reasons of the end of Cold War have taught the nation-states to contextualise economical realities before entering to any arms race or for that matter the space race.

One basic question which is more theoretical in nature but demands attention is to appreciate the coloration between the concept of space power and space race. What could be basic purpose behind this race? Is the race for demonstration of the ‘ownership of the space power’ or power is just a subset of the race (or race is the subset of power) or is it incorrect to simultaneously confer these issues? From shear academic perspective, such various possibilities could be argued for or against. What is important to note is that the general theory of space power is yet to fully evolve. A blunt question has been asked by Collin Grey2 in this regard: ‘Where is the

Mahan[341] for space power?’ Interestingly, the argument put forth by Gray is somewhat deficient in taking into account the strategic significance of space. During the late 1990s, he argued that space has attracted attention:

• As a realm wherein national scientific and engineering prowess could be

showcased

• As a sentimentalised zone that should not be polluted by terrestrial nastiness

• As a geographical medium whose exploitation is potentially vital for the

effectiveness of multilayered ballistic missile defences[342]

Now, the question is ‘are these statements still completely valid in the twenty-first century’? Should the absence of terrestrial nastiness be taken for granted? In Asian context, such enquiry becomes more important particularly at the backdrop of the 2007 ASAT test conducted by China. It is also important to factor in some of the opinions of Colin Gray: he argues that ‘there has never been an aggressive weapon, only aggressive owners and operators of weapon’. On the other hand, it is important to appreciate that space is not ‘just another’ geographical environment. It is not only about military and weapons alone. In fact, in overall context, it has a larger socioeconomic dimension. Space-based weapons and other issues associated with ASAT (most of which are mainly theoretical postulations) have limited relevance. Hence, space race should not be viewed from a narrow ‘arms race’ perspective.

1950s-1970s was a different era when the launch of Sputnik and the space visit by Gagarin had created hysteria in the USA. The erstwhile USSR’s accomplish­ments were (in)directly linked to the advantages their military could get from such successes. Also, provocative opinions like the possibility ‘communist Moon’ (if the USA fails to reach there before the Soviets!) were being expressed to increase the ante then. Conversely, the situation in Asia presently is far different than the Cold War era. In Asian context, the initial media observation of an Asian Space Race probably emerged only as late as 2003 with the success of China’s manned space mission. This could have happened because along with China, other two states from the region, namely, Japan and India, also have successful space programmes with well-articulated roadmap for the future. Particularly, the interest of these three states (almost simultaneously) in development of Moon missions helped fuelling these speculations further. In short, it was realised that in Asia, China was not the only country having a capability to sit on the high table, and this could have helped to fuel the talk of Asian Space Race further. It is important to note that the concept of race is not being formulated only based on the achievements of these states in the space area but also because of the overall development shown by these three states in various other fields. Hence, any assessment of the notion of space race in Asia needs to be carried out as an offshoot of the overall growth trajectory of these states.

In comparison with the USA and Russia (USSR earlier), various Asian states could be viewed as late starters in design, manufacture and launch of satellites. However, these states have also got certain advantages of being the late starters. They have the background knowledge of requirements for planning and technical developments. Also, they have a higher level of trust in starting various space programmes because in most of the cases, they are not the beginners and are not ‘bestowed with the responsibility of inventing the wheel’. Their initial investments are found more based on the nature of support they got from the developed nations than as a result of any rivalry with their neighbours.

Most of the literature on this subject mainly takes into account the possibility of race amongst only these big three in Asia. However, race is a relative concept. Few other states in the region with less-developed space programmes may not be compared with these giants, but they could be compared amongst themselves. This becomes important because geopolitical realities in certain parts of Asia could make a case for the chances of existence of such a race. In case of Koreas, the peninsular prestige could force them to engage in space race. Similarly, a possibility exists for the Israel-Iran race. Also, even if Pakistan cannot match India in space arena they could attempt to outmanoeuvre India in missile defence and ASAT fields giving rise to a different kind of competition.

Nevertheless, it is also important to raise the question: ‘are such mostly Cold War era centric formulations like the “arms race” and “space race” valid in the twenty – first century world any more’? Most traditional perceptions of warfare catering for conventional threats by conventional means have changed over the years. Issues involving globalisation, terrorism, economic challenges, energy, poverty, natural disasters and climate change are changing the nature of overall threat dynamics. Are states willing to undertake blind investments in strategic assets only for the sake of nationalism or one-upmanship? Is the notion of nationalism true for the twenty – first-century world mainly driven by economic factors? Does nationalism has same meaning for communist, autocratic and democratic regimes? Would coming decades of twenty-first century witness commencement of post-nationalism era? Under these circumstances, ‘is there a need to reformulate the space race question’?

Asia is fast becoming the pivot of global geopolitical change. When the world is going through the crucial phase of shifts in global economic and political power structures, the Asian region is offering new opportunities as well as posing certain uncertainties. The three major players of Asia are holding the key to a cooperative security environment. Asia’s changing power dynamics are reflected in ‘rise’ of China and India, increasingly assertive foreign policy posturing of China and Japan’s reluctance to remain in synch with the USA on every issue. Never before in history have there been a strong China, a strong India and a strong Japan at the same time. At the same time, it is also believed that the rivalry between China and Japan and underlying dissonance between China and India can hardly contribute to the building of a stable and secure Asia. Unfortunately, China’s ascent is not found instrumental in bringing Asian states closure [1] In space field too, it has

been observed that these three powers are at the centre of ‘action’. Unfortunately, the geopolitical challenges faced by them are not probably allowing them to work together in this space arena.

It is also important to note that interests in space technologies for various Asian states are far and varied. Smaller and less-developed states like Laos, Bangladesh and few others have only recently began to realise the relevance of this technology in the process of state building, while for a state like China, space is probably an instrument for maintaining strategic balance of power in the region. For major players within the region, issues related to space also have wider arms control and disarmament connotations at the global level. They understand that space technologies are not only about development but have large-scale geopolitical connotations too. Also, various powers in the region have different concerns about the weaponisation of space.

Asia’s geopolitical landscape has shown major undulations in the last few decades. Various global events have brought significant changes in the policy perspectives of the states in the region. The end of Cold War has affected the political dynamics of the region. In physical sense, 9/11 did not happen on the Asian soil, but the region suffered maximum in the USA-led war on terror. Asian tsunami, Fukushima nuclear disaster and the 2011 Arab uprising are proving to be game changer for the region. On the other hand, the economic predictions for the region’s future are very bright. By 2010, China has emerged as the second largest economy in the world surpassing Japan, which is now in third position. India is expected to emerge as the third largest economic power in the world within couple of years. During global financial crises of 2008/2011, big three states from Asia along with states like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and few others succeeded in avoiding any major economic downturns. In the field of science and technology, the progress made of Asian states is remarkable and the future appears to be bright.

It is important to factor all these reasons while making any assessment of Asia’s space ambitions. Also, it is important to note that most of the spacefaring states in the region have already articulated their roadmaps for the future. In Dec 2011, China has published their third White Paper giving details of plans for next 5 years. All this offers some basis for a futuristic assessment.

Most the writings in support of the notion of Asian Space Race essentially revolve their argument based on the ambitions of big three in undertaking manned space missions and deep-space missions. Since most of the programmes of these three states in these fields have started almost simultaneously, a general conclusion has been drawn about the existence of space race amongst them. However, it could be incorrect to make any comprehensive assessment based on few variables. It is also important to factor in their capabilities in various other fields from launch vehicles to communication and remote sensing satellites to navigational constellation to making commercial exploitation of space technologies. It is also important to study the strategic relevance of their space programmes as well as the impact of regional institutional mechanisms.

The Part III of this book provides detail discussion about various strategic aspects of the Asian space programmes. In regard to Japan-China-India, there exists a commonality in various aspects of their space programme. All three have ambitions in respect of human space flights. Though, their journey so far is not indicative of any burning ambition to outmanoeuvre each other. Japan has been in the business of human space flight since 1992, and many of their astronauts have visited the International Space Station. They have achieved this feat only with the help of Russia and the USA. They have not developed any own vehicle for space travel. Few decades back with the help of Russia, India was able to send its first (and the only so far) astronaut to the space. It has been reported that during 2009, India’s Planning Commission has signed off on a proposed two-person manned spaceship to be launched by 2015 on an existing satellite launcher.[343] Subsequently, not much of a progress has been made towards converting this idea into a reality. The only bright spot so far visible, with their ambitions of reaching outer space, was the 2007 successful experiment of the Space Recovery Capsule Experiment (SRE). But, this was just one of the nascent attempts towards developing a transport vehicle which could eventually carry a human to the space. Currently, there appears to be no plans to validate this technology further and proceed to the next step of undertaking robotic missions. Indian administration has made certain announcements in regard their ambitions to undertake a human space flight. Nevertheless, actually on ground, the situation looks entirely different, and India looks still far away from having an indigenous programme for the human space flight, while China has already undertaken its first manned mission in 2003 and has followed it up by few more missions and have also successfully undertaken a spacewalk. Hence, it could be incorrect to conclude that these three states are in competition in regard to human space mission.

Japan has been one of the active members of the International Space Station (ISS) programme since its inception. In Oct 2011, China has launched the Tiangong-1, an orbital test module for a planned 2020 space station. They have also undertaken successful space docking experimentation, while India is neither the part of ISS nor it has announced any proposal for the development of a space station. Hence, even if India undertakes any human space mission, the purpose behind it could be just a technology demonstration and is unlikely to feed into any long-term programme. There are no visible military advantages of human space mission or a development of the space station. Also, the years of experimentation carried out by major space players in the zero gravity atmosphere so far has not yielded any path-breaking results. Hence, states like India understand that there are very limited benefits (at this point in time) of undertaking such missions. Probably, the best option could be to device a multilateral mechanism for all such activities. If the state has to go solo, then they could invest more in robotic missions than human missions. This could allow the state to concentrate more on developmental, strategic and commercial programmes. All this indicates that technologically or otherwise the chances of Asian Space Race in human space flights and space station arena are minimal. Amongst these three states, China could value nationalism more (could be more of a compulsion to keep the communism intact!) and would continue to invest in such ‘exotic’ programmes, while other two democratic states appear to be more pragmatic.

Moon missions undertaken by these three states have many similarities including the timing of the missions. Japan and China had launched their missions during Sept/Oct 2007, while India had launched 1 year later. The nature of sensors onboard of these crafts and the type of information gathered by all three are comparable in some respects. These missions have helped these states to boost their national pride and have also raised their stature internationally. These states have succeed in bringing the focus back to the Moon some 40 years after the USA landed a man on the Moon. However, they are well aware that from the scientific point of view, the US success was of extremely limited value, and the excitement of their achievement had dissipated relatively quickly.[344] It could be incorrect to view Asia’s interest in the Moon only for the purpose of scientific hype. They understand the relevance of the Moon from the point of view of minerals. They are also trying to judge the feasibility of helium-3 on the surface of the Moon offering a solution to energy security. These states understand the importance of the technological spin-offs from such missions. Particularly, developments in technologies like Deep Space Networks (DSN) and robotics (rovers, landers, etc.) would provide them with strategic edge. They have well-articulated plans for coming missions. These are early times, and the exact nature of output from such missions is difficult to predict. India has involved (in limited capacity) few other states mainly the USA and Russia in regard to their Moon programme. However, mostly all these states are working without any outside cooperation and more importantly no cooperation amongst themselves. The investments by the big three in the Moon mission could be viewed as a race for resources. China appears to be looking at the Moon not only as backyard for mining the minerals but have larger ambitions. They desire to undertake a human mission to the Moon as a first country in the twenty-first century. They view this mission as a ‘contrivance’ to achieve the great power status.

In military arena, it is a bit difficult to exactly pinpoint whether it is a race amongst them or they are using this technology to address their individual security concerns. It is a known fact that all of their security concerns are not independent of each other, and particularly in the case of China, both Japan and India fall in their security calculus. In Asian theatre, there are various well-entrenched geopolitical rivalries. They revolve around Taiwan, Pakistan, Vietnam, North Korea and the USA. For the region, it is very difficult to judge the exact nature of investments in military space hardware. This is mainly because various states draw little distinction between their civilian and military programmes. Luckily, states like Japan and India are becoming increasingly transparent in regard to their military space investments. But in regard to China, the ambiguity persists.

China’s ASAT test has both global as well as regional connotations. China’s test has strategic implications and holds a ‘potential’ for imitation by other states

mainly from the region. The current trend in the region indicates that the concept of weaponisation of space is likely to remain restricted to mostly debating, developing and in rare cases testing the ASAT technologies. Not much of efforts (at least overt) are visible in respect of developing and positioning weapons in space. Mostly, the states in the region understand that any significant investments in this field could cause another costly arms race similar to that during the Cold War. Perhaps, this could be one the reasons for no serious attempts being done so far to develop such weapons. However, the decision not to deploy any space weapons does not guaranty any permanent commitment to keep space forever free from weaponry. In all likelihood to keep various options open, no significant efforts are being made to develop any globally acceptable treaty mechanism.

In the twenty-first century, states are concentrating significantly on the economic development. Particularly, the Cold War period has taught states the limitations of ‘blind’ arms race. States have understood the importance of economic security for the growth of the country. Space technologies have significant potential for economic engagement of the state. The increasing global demand in satellite tech­nologies makes space as a lucrative business ground. The big three spacefaring states in Asia are keen to enter in this market both for economic as well as geopolitical benefits. To decipher the nature of regional space race, it is important to broadly understand the economic and commercial aspects of the various space programmes. One limitation of this book is that space economics of Asians states has not been discussed. There are two main reasons for this. First, since the main focus of this book has been to study the strategic aspects of Asia’s space agenda, no discussions on the space commerce have been undertaken; also very less authentic (or even otherwise) and detailed information is available in this regard. Second, economic assessment is a specialised subject, and particularly, space assessment would require separate analysis for various sectors like communication and navigation. In regard to India, an Oxford publication (2007) titled The Economics of India’s Space Programme by U. Sankar highlighting and analysing various budgetary aspects is available, but for comparative analysis, little information is available for other states particularly for state like China. On an average, India’s space budget is approximately 2-2.5 times less than Japan and China.

Space commerce mainly revolves around three different areas: satellite manu­facturing facilities, launching facilities for the satellites and the sale of satellite products (raw or processed data, satellite imagery, etc.). One of the areas where spacefaring nations in the region have business interest is the area of satellite­launching facilities.

The big three in the region are in a position to launch satellites of almost all types in almost all orbits. They have well-developed launching facilities and have a good success rate with their launching systems. Also, these states are known to offer commercially economical launch rates in compression with other spacefaring states. In 2011, China undertook 19 satellites blastoffs (18 successful). It was much higher than the previous high for Chinese launches in a year set in 2010 with 15 flights.[345] During Dec 2011, China launched a communication satellite for Nigeria and had a lift-off mass of 5,100 kg. China is set to make five commercial launches for foreign customers in 2012 (they had three commercial launches in 2011). On Jan 9, 2012, Chinese Long March 4B rocket launched a 2,650-kg Ziyuan III satellite. In the same mission, China has also carried a satellite from Luxembourg. Normally, 20-30 commercial launches happen in the world each year. Most of such launches are carried out by Russia and European countries. In the year 2012, China would approximately undertake 15 % of probable global commercial launches. So far, China has conducted 33 commercial launches for international customers, putting 39 satellites into orbit. China has ambitions of achieving a target of a 15 % share of the commercial launch market and a 10 % share of the satellite export market by 2015.[346]

India also demonstrates a good record in regard to launching of satellites for other states on commercial basis. This has become possible because of the success of its PSLV launcher, the most successful workhorse of ISRO. Till the end of September 2012, this system has proved its reliability and versatility by launching 55 satellites/spacecrafts (26 Indian and 29 foreign satellites) into a variety of orbits.[347] However, it is important to note that most the satellites launched for the foreign states were small sized, and actually, only five to six large satellites were launched from pure commercial point of view. It is important for India to expand this business with more vigour. Currently, India has two satellite launch pads and looking at the growth potential is planning to develop one more pad. India has limitations in regard to launching of heavy satellites. China’s Long March series of satellites are capable of carrying the maximum payload of 12,000 kg for LEO and 5,500 kg for GTO. They are developing next-generation rockets capable of carrying more load. India’s GSLV Mark I&II launchers are capable of launching satellites in the range of 2,000-2,500 kg payload. However, India is still not in a position to launch satellites which weigh 4,500-5,000 kg. Because India is yet to indigenise the cryogenic technology, the state is still far away from developing a self-sufficiency to launch heavier satellites.

In respect of China and India, the overall successes with their space programmes have helped them to raise their stature internationally, and this has indirectly helped them commercially.

The case of Japan is a bit different. They are yet to make a mark in commercial sector. Japan’s National Space Development Agency, JAXA’s predecessor, had developed the H-IIA rocket, and the first H-IIA blasted off in 2001. During Dec 2011, this rocket has successfully launched Japan’s spy satellite. A few years back,

the H-IIA project was taken over by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Japan is keen to develop its satellite launch business along with this agency. On its next mission, an H-IIA will carry a South Korean satellite, representing the first launch deal with a foreign country. The present success rate of this rocket is 95 %.10 However, the company is depending only on government contracts. Since till date Japan has never launched a commercial satellite using its indigenous H-IIA rocket, it’s too premature to predict the future of its launch business particularly with expected global slowdown of launch market due to economic crisis.

Asian states are also aware about the soft power significance of this technology. Naturally, there is a competition to attract clients. All these three states have achieved certain amount of expertise to manufacture custom-made satellites and have sold few units too. They also understand that even non-spacefaring states like South Korea could give them competition in this field. Presently, China and India are finding a place as the most preferred destination for various satellite-related services including ground developing facilities like Earth stations. Understanding the business potential of this sector, states like South Korea and Malaysia are also keen to develop a niche in this field. In overall context, it could be said that like any other business, space is one sector where states are in competition. However, geopolitical significance of such business deals cannot be overlooked. In the future, a possibility exists that some of such services would be handled by private players. Already, particularly in the arena of small and micro-satellites, private industry is playing a significant role. The industry needs to learn from examples like Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, UK, which have succeeded in developing a niche in the field of small satellites.

Following table [2] gives few important details about the major programmes in the region.

Country	Space budget (yearly US$)	Civilian space personnel	Launches per year
Japan	$ 3.8 billion	8,300	2-3
China	$ 2.2 billion (estimated)	80,000 (estimated)	10-15
India	$ 1.3 billion	32,000 (estimated)	2-3
South Korea	$ 220 million	2,500 (estimated)	0-1

Above information indicates that China offers the best turnaround time in respect of launching capabilities (they have plans to launch 21 rockets and 30 satellites in 2012), and they have invested significantly in developing human resources in this field. Presently, there are some Asian states keen to exploit the commercial component of space technologies; however, there appears to be a mismatch in respect of enthusiasm and actual ground realities. Hence, only in an imitated scene,

it could be argued that the race exists to grab the commercial market. China is much ahead of others in this field too.

China is also found intelligently using space industry as an important means for extending its soft power standing. They are found engaging states in Africa, Latin America and also few Asian states to spread their political influence and probably with a hidden agenda of bartering this technology for energy sources, minerals and natural resources. China’s attempts look well organised with clarity of motive. India appears to have realised the soft power potential of this technology, but no concentrated efforts are visible to that effect. Both China and Japan are found using multilateral mechanisms11 as a method to win friends and establishment. China is hosting Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO), while Japan is instrumental in establishing the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum (APRSAF). APSCO is without India and Japan clearly indicating that China is basically interested to engage less-developed states in the region and keep the competitors away. In its part, India hosts the Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in Asia and the Pacific (CSSTEAP), affiliated to UN. It was established in Nov 1995 with various organisations and countries as members. Such framework offers India to undertake multilateral scientific engagement; however, from the point of view of ‘influence’, it has limited relevance.

The general tendency of the big three Asian states appears to be to go alone in space arena. Particularly, their deep-space agendas have various commonalties, but no effort is seen to joint undertake any projects. These states could have developed an Asian space station on the lines of ISS. Pulling together of scientific, technological and economic resources could have assured a faster growth and avoided scientific duplication. However, the geopolitical divide is keeping the states away from each other. Even for many other states in the region, harmonious relations do not exist (like amongst few South East Asian neighbours, in Korean peninsula, Vietnam and China). It appears that mainly due to strategic considerations, these states are not keen to develop any joint programmes.

It is argued that ‘Asian trends stand in sharp contrast to space developments in Europe, where the leading nations cooperate extensively. By contrast, Asian space powers are highly isolated from one another, do not share information and display tremendous divergence of perspective’ [3]. The basic logic over here is that since Asian states are not keen to cooperate with each other, it indicates that there is a ‘race’ amongst them. It is important to examine such logic: but not purely in isolation or by using European standards to judge Asian realities.

The notion of collective security could vary from Europe to Asia. The Asian region’s history indicates a lack of inclination to provide any collective response in case of an attack on any country in the region. Also, there is an absence of regionally accepted multilateral security group involved in addressing security concerns of the

region. Organisations like ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) have limited relevance. But non-existence of any forum in context of security or for the purposes of development of science and technology does not automatically imply that the states are in competition with each other. Probably, no such culture exists. Maybe since the states within the region are not pushing for any ‘new world order’ and hence are not found keen to develop and display any inter-state mechanisms of cooperation which also includes cooperation in space. Essentially, states have a policy of neutrality in favour of collective security, and this could be one of reasons for states to opt for state-specific space programmes.

Normally, the notion of space race is being debated only in regard to be Japan – China-India. However, theoretically, the possibility of the race in few other regions of Asia also exits. Hence, for a wider scrutiny (in broad sense, the race is amongst the equals), it is important to study the interests of few states in the region whose space programmes are broadly comparable. South Korea and North Korea are the latecomers to the space field, and their investments have obvious missile bias. But, South Korea’s interests are beyond missiles too. They have major ambitions in space arena. Unfortunately, their actual achievements do not match with their ambitions. It is unlikely that in the coming few decades, they would be able to challenge the supremacy of the big three. Presently, states like Russia are assisting them to develop their programme. It is expected that in the coming few years, they would be in a position to attend the status of spacefaring nation. They are keen to develop infrastructure for satellite-launching capabilities mainly with commercial interests in mind. However, it is important to note that South Korea’s military is keen to replace some of its ageing spy planes. Hence, they are planning to buy two advanced reconnaissance planes from France by 2015, to allow its military to intercept radio messages from North Korea. The timing of the delivery of the aircrafts is significant because by Dec 2015, South Korea is scheduled to retake wartime operational control over its troops from the USA.[348] All such strategic needs of South Korea clearly indicate that they would also attempt to develop and launch spy satellites once they develop the expertise. Over a period of time, North Korea is also expected to develop reasonable launch capabilities. North Korea would have concerns about the existing spy satellite network of Japan. Hence, in the coming few years, Korean Peninsula could witness space race mainly arising out of strategic considerations.

Israel is a spacefaring state with reasonably developed capabilities. Iran is also found making rapid progress. Saudi Arabia is also making significant investments to have independent assets in space. The geopolitical landscape of this part of Asia is extremely complicated, and any cooperation in space arena is unlikely. States in the region are prone to abuse space issues for their political rivalry. Iran is likely to continue to use space launches to demonstrate their missile capabilities. But, at the same time, they are expected to take their space programme out of the limited mandate of using it as a ‘cover’ for their missile ambitions and would use it to demonstrate the level of their scientific expertise. With Iran furthering its space agenda, Israel is likely to invest in ASAT technologies. To date, Israel has not conducted any test of nuclear weapons to demonstrate its ability; however, this does not guarantee that they would follow the same policy in the ASAT field. Smaller states in Asian region, like Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Taiwan, are also growing their own space infrastructure. They are being supported in this endeavour by few states from Asia and abroad. These states individually may be keen to be a part of any ‘politics of space’; however, the increasing interests shown by few other major spacefaring states from and outside the region could end up increasing the competition amongst the patron states.

The post-Cold War era is witnessing several major changes in the nature of the space race. The end of the US space shuttle programme in 2010 without presenting any other alternative proposals to continue with the human space flight programme is indicative of the fact that the USA no longer associates ‘prestige’ as the most important issue in regard to developments in space. Today, they are depending on Russia, its one time rival to send its astronauts to the ISS. The USA understands that irrespective of stopping one of the prestigious programmes like this, their leadership in space would continue to exist. However, the US action highlights that in a broader sense: (1) Economical viability would govern the future of many space programmes, and (2) Space projects have long gestation periods. Short political life of decision­makers mainly in democratic dispensations (politicians are normally keen to have results of any project, say, within a life span of 4-5-year election cycle) could end up stalling very long-term investments. Mostly the technologies which prove their scientific, commercial or strategic relevance in reasonable time frame get political patronage. (3) The twenty-first-century world is probably entering an era of post­nationalism. National identities are getting somewhat blurred, and the perception about the so-called prestige of a state is not remaining limited to some isolated achievements. States are found undertaking cost-benefit analysis (benefits have both economic and strategic conations) before making any big investments. All this have Asian relevance too.

In Asia, the space race is being mostly discussed amongst the trio Japan-China – India. It is important to note that China and Japan are the second and third ranked economies of the world, while Indian economy is still in the process of development. China follows a communist form of government, while the remaining two are vibrant democracies. It is important to appreciate that the economic condition of a state, the political model followed by the state, the social and security challenges faced by the state, the level of growth of science and technology in the state and few other factors play their roles either directly or indirectly in deciding the space policies of a state. All such factors should be mulled over while theorising the conception of space race in Asia.

Asia’s space story is mostly being viewed as a story of competition. The inquest is ‘has the notion of competition become prevalent just because there is no cooperation’? It is understood that the main reason for lack of cooperation is the strategic compulsions particularly in respect of India-China and China-Japan. It is also important to note that for many years because of its nuclear policies,

India was the victim of technological apartheid. Some agencies under ISRO were under international sections for many years. In certain cases, India was facing certain difficulties in regard to technology transfer and other issues. Only after the successful culmination of the Indo-US nuclear deal (2005) by 2011 that various agencies of ISRO have been taken out from the list of banned companies. On the other hand, Japan is having collaboration with the USA for many years, and naturally, they had no significant interest to look for partners within the region. Hence, the argument of competition leading to space race may not be fully true. Another important aspect is the case of military concerns. Are the defence-related investments in space arena by Asian states are entirely Asia centric? The answer is no. Particularly, in the case of China, the investments are mainly US centric. When viewed holistically at the backdrop of geopolitical realities, it appears that even though the space race is getting discussed more in Asian region, but in real sense, the race is taking place amongst the USA and China.

In Asian context after analysing the various space programmes, a question arises: ‘is the Cold War era analogy of space race is being used too naively in Asian theatre’? Is there any Western agenda behind propagating this theory? Is China’s growing assertiveness and the rising power status of India being feared internationally and hence attempts are being made to keep them engaged in the region and also with each other? Is the Western notion in regard to the precarious nature of various long-standing geopolitical feuds in Asia leading to a conflicting and volatile situation real or exaggerated? Is it a ploy to discredit the actual technological achievements of the Asian states by diverting the attention by stressing about space race? Is bracketing Asian space programme into the category of race is actually defaming it probably to guard the business interests? All in all, has any objective analysis of Asian Space Race been carried out based on geopolitical, geostrategic and geo-economical realities? Is the experts community within and outside Asia shying away to reason out non-existence of any Asian Space Race just because it could be unfashionable to say so? Is Asian region the only region in the world where signs of space race are visible?

For long, competition and cooperation are found coexisting in regard to space agenda of the USA and the European Union. In the recent years, the biggest shock for the USA was the conception of the idea of separate global navigational setup (Galileo) by the EU challenging the supremacy of the GPS. Europe has very strong space capabilities and considers space as a part of the EU political project. Commercial interest of the USA as well as EU in space arena is well known. Officially from Brussels, nothing much is spoken about the relevance of space technologies for the security purposes. However, this does not indicate zero interest. France, Germany, UK, Italy, etc. would definitely have some strategic expectations from the space programme. Within the EU grouping, the states like Germany, UK, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway have varying degree of investments made in the satellite technologies and their applications. Canada is also a part of ESA and has made reasonable investments in the space arena. Mostly, the European states have no major security challenges within the region but they do compete for geopolitical, economic and technological leadership both at regional and global level. However, not many attempts have been made to understand space agendas of these regions and compare and contract them from point of view of understanding the possibility of any race.

It appears that Japan-China-India to a great extent have succeeded in leaving peacefully with their respective differences for long, and probably this fact is not getting factored in various assessments of arms race and space race in Asian context. More importantly for the last four to five decades, these states have been found involved mainly with the activities involving non-military use of space. Early history of their space programmes suggests that their investments were not made as reactions to each other’s programmes but more as a part of their scientific and social agenda. The Asian security milieu has nuclear weapons at its cornerstone. However, the nuclear weapon states form the region are not found (at least overtly) linking military space power and strategic offensive and defensive capabilities. Hypothetically, if China has to engage someone in a joint space and nuclear weapons game, then they could look at the USA as a competitor and not at India.

This volume has sought to understand the purpose behind the investments by Asian states in the space area with a key focus on their strategic significance.

It has been found that the major spacefaring Asian states are making considerate investments in the space arena. Time and again, they have proved their indigenous capabilities to build and operate world-class satellites. There is clarity of vision amongst them. For them, investments in space are not about romanticism or fighting any abstract space race. They are fully aware about the scientific and strategic significance of their doings. They understand and appreciate the dangers of weaponisation of space and lack of transparent space security regime. However, they are determined to play the game of space politics, if needed, keeping their individual national interests paramount.

The ambitions of various Asian nations to use space technologies for the purpose of the declaration of their economic and technological arrival are obvious. In recent times, the talk of Asian Space Race probably has its roots in the commonality and the timing of the Moon programmes of Japan-China-India. The Moon missions by these states were launched during 2007-2008 period, and they had almost similar mandate. It is being mostly argued that currently no strategic imperatives exist for human space flight, and space exploration does not hold the same strategic importance and priority on national agenda as it did four decades ago [4]. Asian states have not created any significant international architecture for their deep – space missions particularly in regard to Moon. Maybe these are early days, and space players are yet to fully understand the military applicability (if any) in regard to deep-space missions and hence are moving cautiously. On the whole, Asian states are found duplicating their efforts in the deep-space arena. Is this a sheer coincidence or is there something more to it? One of the most likely reason could be that it is not about the race in space, but actually about the energy security compulsions (presence of helium 3 on the Moon surface) and the race for resources (mining of minerals from the Moon’s surface). The Moon is just incidental; if such resources would have been available under the ocean, the states would have attempted to reach there!

The major share of debate in regard to the Asian Space Race is found revolving around the possibility of race amongst China and India. However, such possibility should not be presumed only based on the assessment of strategic factors. It is important to factor in the actual technological capabilities and aspirations of the state too.

China’s technological progress (both in space arena or otherwise) clearly places them much ahead of other Asian space powers. They have expressed their desire to achieve greater heights in space arena and have made superior plans than others. Their track record so far clearly indicates that they have the capability to fulfil their space dreams mostly within the time frame envisaged. It appears that even in the twenty-first century, China is unable to get over the (probably) dated notion of the so-called national pride. However, this could make them focus and invest more on their space agenda. On the other hand, India and Japan have their priorities fixed. India realises the relevance of Chinese achievements in space technologies but is not found getting into the competitive mode and trying to imitate China. Indian investments are found being made based on cost and benefit analysis. In most fields, they are found making incremental developmental efforts based on their own assessment of socioeconomic and technological advantages of such investments. It is not making investments into the technologies which have no social, scientific or strategic significance. It appears that India could go slow with its human space programme, and their top priority could be to undertake robotic missions as a starting point.

In general, various states in Asia are found making investments in space technologies which could offer social, technological, commercial and strategic benefits for their country. The issue is would the Asian space investments pose a major threat to stability in the post-Cold War world? The answer is probably no, at least not in the near future. However, there are certain valid concerns about China’s intent. The world has learnt many lessons from the Chinese 2007 ASAT. Probably, China also would have learnt some lessons from the global backlash to this test. It is important to note that any eventual weaponisation of space would weaken the global economy and could convert the space race into space arms race. On the other hand, there is a sense that China has a desire to achieve great power status. They feel that an achievement in space offers them an opportunity to do so. From that point of view, they could invest more into iconic programmes like human Moon mission that could add up to their reputation than odious missions like ASAT. They are targeting to match and outdo the best in the world. Naturally, their race is not with India or Japan, but they are to outperform the USA. Overall, China has succeeded in strategically positioning itself well and has made appropriate use of their space programme to do so.

The major portion of the global space discourse since the beginning of the twenty-first century has been revolving around the theme of Asian Space Race, and to a certain extent, an impression has been created that such race exists and is brewing. Nonetheless, the issue appears to be far from settled. There are certain commonalities in the existing and the proposed space agendas of China-Japan – India. Though, the achievements of China are found far superior than other states in the region. Also, China has far greater ambitions than other Asian states in space field (too). The overall technological appreciations of various space programmes in the region clearly enunciate China as a winner. However, when viewed at a backdrop of geostrategic, geopolitical and geo-economical settings, different sensitivities emerge. States also have their complimentary space narratives, and for some of them, multiple narratives exist. Few states are found intelligently using space technologies to realise their soft power aspirations. Simultaneously, the hard power relevance of space technologies is mostly being underplayed but still refuses to lay low. States are found using a blend of both soft power and hard power called a smart power strategy. The (empirical) space balance sheet and strategic realities in regard to various Asian states demonstrate that it is difficult to conclude with certitude about the existence or absence of Asian Space Race. The current trends indicate no definitive but only somewhat suggestive space race in Asia.

[1]Various studies are available which justify this argument. However, figures vary in most of such studies for various reasons like methodology, data collection, biases, etc. Academic paper like

Tom McArthur, “English as an Asian Language”, http://www. accu. or. jp/appreb/09/pdf33-2/33- 2P003-004.pdf, accessed on Oct 6, 2011, highlight this argument by putting across empirical, observational and theoretical arguments.

[3]http://catarina. udlap. mx/u_dl_a/tales/documentos/lim/kerfin_c_ma/capitulo2.pdf, accessed on Jan

25, 2012.

[5]“Basic Human Needs, Science, And Technology”, Panel on Technology for Basic Needs, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, Published jointly by the International Development Research Centre Ottawa, Canada and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Geneva, Switzerland, 1997, op cit.

[6]The country specific information in the section is taken from Nabanita R. Krishnan [12].

[7]http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Satellite, accessed on Sep 15, 2012.

^Militarisation of space’ is about using satellites for the purposes of military communication, reconnaissance and navigation. Such usage is universally accepted and is not in violation of any treaty regime. ‘Weaponisation of space’ means causing intentional damage to the space assets of other states either of permanent or temporary in nature.

‘“Iran’s science progress fastest in world: Canadian report”, Feb 19, 2010, http://edition. presstv. ir/

detail/118977.html, accessed on Nov 20, 2011.

3International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: Activities of Member States in 2002 National Activities of Iran (Islamic Republic of), United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, http://www. oosa. unvienna. org/natact/2002/iran. html, last updated February 7, 2003. The current documentation available on the UNOOSA website is from 2004 to 2009 covering few countries and no information on Iran is available, accessed on Dec 13, 2011.

4“International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: Activities of Member States in 2003,” United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, http://www. oosa. unvienna. org/natact/2003/ iran. html, last updated January 27, 2004. Presently this link is not working, accessed on Dec 13, 2011. This and earlier footnote are based on Lee Kass, “Iran’s Space Program: The Next Genie In A Bottle?”, The Middile East Review of International Affairs, Volume 10, No. 3, Article 2/10 – September 2006, http://meria. idc. ac. il/journal/2006/issue3/jv10no3a2.html, accessed on Dec 12, 2011.

[13]“Small Multimission Spacecraft (SMMS)”, http://www. globalsecurity. org/space/world/china/ smms. htm, accessed on Dec 8, 2011.

[14]http://afp. google. com/article/ALeqM5jFpohlpSs7iLXpyOB9MalGwKRIgQ

[15] http://news. discovery. com/space/iran – launch – monkey-rocket – fail- 111012.html

[16]“Iran launches newest satellite into space”, Feb 3, 2012, http://www. payvand. com/news/12/feb/ 1034.html accessed on Feb 8, 2012.

[17] The Iran Telecommunications Research Center (ITRC) and the Iran Science Organization of Science and Technology (IROST) were jointly building this micro-satellite with the Italian company Carlo Gavazzi Space.

[18]“Iran to launch new generation of satellites”, Feb 08, 2012, http://www. space-travel. com/reports/ Iran_toJaunch_new_generation_of_satellites_999.html, accessed on Feb 08, 2012.

[19]Remarks by Prof. Isaac Ben-Israel, Chairman, Israel Space Agency, at the Space Security Conference, held at New Delhi 13-14 Nov 2007. The conference was jointly organised by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), India and Center for Defence and International Security Studies (CDiSS), UK.

[20]“Focus on Israel: Israel in Space”, www. mfa. gov. il/MFA//1/Focus+on+Israel-+Israel+in+Space. htm, Jan 1, 2003, accessed on Nov 15, 2011Cached.

[21]http://www. defpro. com/news/details/30645/?SID=b2138ee2c3f220b24fd99d2b35924800, Dec 11, 2011, accessed on Dec 14, 2011.

[22]http://www. space-travel. com/reports/AMOS_5_Communications_Satellite_Successfully_ Launched_999.html, accessed on Dec 15, 2011.

[23]Israel Joins Galileo, “Intelligence Online, March 26, 2004, in “Israel To Take Part in European Galileo Project,” FBIS Document EUP20040329000444. Cited in “Space: Israel: Military Pro­gramme,” at http://cns. miis. edu/research/space/israel/mil. htm, accessed on Aug 16, 2007.

[24]http://www. jewishvirtuallibrary. org/jsource/US-Israel/nasa. html, accessed on Sept 23, 2008.

[25]http://www. esa. int/esaCP/SEMKE3Y 1LJG_index_0.html, accessed on Dec 14, 2011.

[26]“Emirates close to French satellite buy”, Dec 23, 2011, http://www. spacemart. com/reports/ Emirates_close_to_French_satellite_buy_999.html, and “Yahsat’s Y1A satellite launched”, Apr 23 , 2011, http://www. emirates247.com/news/emirates/yahsat-s-y1a-satellite-launched-2011-04- 23-1.384269, accessed on Dec 26, 2011.

[27]“Arabsat – Saudi Arabia and Communication Satellite Systems”, http://www. fas. org/spp/guide/ saudi/comm/index. html, and http://www. emiratesweek. com/2010/05/1224 accessed on Dec 15, 2011.

[28]http://space. skyrocket. de/doc_sdat/saudicomsat-1.htm, accessed Dec 14, 2011.

[29]The Financial Express, New Delhi, Mar 06, 2010 and “Saudi Arabia to sign agreement with ISRO for its space program”, Jul 6, 2010, http://www. ummid. com/news/2010/July/06.07.2010/ saudi_scientists_to_seelkisro_cooperation. htm and “Saudi Arabia, Ukraine to hold joint space exploration”, Nov 6, 2010, http://en. rian. ru/world/20101106/161229095.html, accessed on Dec 15, 2011.

[30]Turksat 2A is also known as Eurasiasat 1, the craft is operated by the Monaco-based company Eurasiasat, which was established in 1996 as a joint venture between Turk Telekom and Alcatel Space.

[31]“Turkey’s first national satellite launched” http://www. worldbulletin. net/?aType=

haber&ArticleID=77632, accessed on Dec 8, 2011.

[33]“Turkey signs satellite deal with Japanese firm”, Mar 7, 2011, http://news. xinhuanet. com/ english2010/sci/2011-03/07/c_13765698.htm, accessed on Dec 15, 2011.

[34]http://space. skyrocket. de/doc_sdat/gokturk-1.htm, accessed on Dec 6, 2011.

[35]http://www. trdefence. com/2011/06/06/china-to-launch-turkeys-first-intelligence-satellite-in- december/, accessed on Dec 6, 2011.

[36]“Turkish satellite to roll back Israel’s turf veil”, Mar 10, 2011, http://www. alarabiya. net/articles/ 2011/03/10/140977.html, accessed on Dec 15, 2011.

[37]http://www. suparco. gov. pk/about. html, accessed Feb 12, 2005.

[38]http://www. suparco. gov. pk/about. html, accessed on Dec 15, 2004.

[39]http://www. fas. org/spp/guide/pakistan/agency/index. html, accessed on Dec 15, 2004.

[40]http://www. fas. org/spp/guide/pakistan/agency/index. html, accessed on Dec 15, 2004.

[41]http://www. wisconsinproject. org/countries/pakistan/miss-miles. htm

[42]http://www. paksef. org/suparco. htm, accessed on Jan 23, 2005.

[43]http://www. suparco. gov. pk/sat_badr1.html, accessed on Dec 18, 2004.

[44]http://www. fas. org/spp/guide/pakistan/agency/index. html, accessed on Dec 24, 2004.

[45]http://www. angelfire. com/stars/whippee/badranv. htm, accessed on Dec 24, 2004.

[46]http://www. fas. org/spp/guide/pakistan/agency/index. html, accessed on Nov 27, 2004.

[47]Details of Badr-II are from http://www. suparco. gov. pk/saCbadr1.html and http://www. fas. org/spp/guide/pakistan/earth/, accessed on Dec 5, 2004.

[48]http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Badr_(satenite) and http://www. arabsat. com/pages/

InOrbitSatellites. aspx, accessed on Nov 8, 2011.

[50]http://www. suparco. gov. pk/cyclon_99.html, accessed on Feb 18, 2004.

[51]http://www. apnic. net/mailing-lists/s-asia-it/archive/2003/01/msg00031.html and www.

pakistaniaviation. com/ and http://www. paksef. org/suparco. htm, accessed on Dec 22, 2004.

11 Jane’s Space Directory (2000-2001), Surrey, 2000, p.19.

[53]http://www. suparco. gov. pk/news. html, accessed on Dec 23, 2004.

[54]For more details on Pakistan’s military equipment holdings, see http://www. rediff. com/

news/2002/jan/23spec. htm, accessed on Dec 12, 2004 and http://www. defence. pk/gallery/

pakistan-air-force/index501.html, accessed on Feb 6, 2012.

[57]“China delivered the third F-22P frigates to the Pakistan army”, Sep 26, 2010, http://www. chinamilitary. net/china-delivered-the-third-f-22p-frigates-to-the-pakistan-army. html and http:// pakmr. blogspot. com/2011/07/pns-aslat-4th-frigate-of-f-22p-zulfiqar. html, accessed on Sep 12, 2011.

[58]http://weapons. technology. youngester. com/2011/05/pakistan-airforce-jammed-off-instead-of. html, accessed on Nov 8, 2011.

21 Jane’s Space Directory (2000-2001), Surrey, 2000, pp. 13 & 331.

[60]http://www. aaj. tv/2011/07/navy-pn-inducts-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-in-its-fleet/, accessed on

Nov 2, 2011.

[62]http://www. pakobserver. net/200408/18/view/?page=1&id=5, accessed on Jan 25, 2005.

[63]For more details of the system, refer http://www. eastwestin. com/TAPS_milproducts. htm, ac­cessed on Feb 2, 2005.

[64]http://www. pakistanidefenceforum. com/lofiversion/index. php/t35353.html, accessed on Dec 17,

2004.

[66]http://www. iwar. org. uk/news-archive/crs/20710.pdf and Times of India, August 02, 2002, ac­

cessed on Dec 15, 2004.

[68]http://www. paksef. org/suparco. htm, accessed on Dec 25, 2004.

[69]http://www. au. af. mil/au/awc/awcgate/grayspc/graysat/surv. htm, accessed on Mar 12, 2005.

[70]http://www. rrcap. unep. org/lc/cd/html/countryrep/pakistan/introduction. html, accessed on Mar

12, 2005.

[72] Even today, India has a sounding rocket programme. It is aimed for better understanding of middle atmospheric dynamics and behaviour of Indian monsoon over the subcontinent.

[73]The erstwhile USSR and India negotiated in August 1971 an agreement (signed on May 10, 1972) in regard to a joint effort to launch a satellite.

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_5, © Springer India 2013

[74]It is important to note that at that point in time, the only technologically sound organisation in India was perhaps the autonomic energy department and as such government had very few independent departments (e. g. in those days India’s Meteorological Department was part of Tourism sector!). Hence, it would be incorrect to link India’s nuclear and space ambitions together.

[75]http://www. bharat-rakshak. com/SPACE/space-history2.html. accessed on Dec 1, 2008.

[76]Ibid.

[77]Ibid. and G. C. Shekar, “ISRO Does an Italian Job”, Hindustan Times, Apr 23, 2007.

[78]http://www. bharat-rakshak. com/SPACE/space-launchers-gslv. html, accessed on Sept 21, 2008.

[79]M. Krishnaswamy and S. Kalyanaraman, “Indian Remote Sensing Satellite Cartosat-1: Technical features and data products”, this paper is written by project director Cartosat-1 and programme director IRS. Also refer Randall R. Correll, “US-India Space Partnership: The Jewel in the Crown”, Astropolitics, Vol 4, No 2, pp. 166-167.

[80]http://www. idsa. in/publications/stratcomments/AjeyLele300408.htm, (accessed on 02 Jan 2011).

[81]U. Sankar, n 2, pp. 36-40.

[82]http://etc. technologyandculture. net/2010/06/siddiqi/, accessed on Sept 28, 2011.

[83]The Telegraph, Apr 5, 2009.

[84]Remarks by President Barack Obama, April 5,2009, http://www. whitehouse. gov/the_press_office/ Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/, accessed on Dec 18, 2011.

[85]“North Korea’s Impact on Commercial Space”, Jan 6, 2009, http://www. aviationweek. com/aw/blogs/space/index. jsp? plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId= blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695- d49ab661f385Post%3A380bfbe7-63dd-4c53-82c4-0403284c3ef0, accessed on Dec 16, 2011.

[86] http://www. voanews. com/english/news/asia/New-North – Korean – Space- Launch – Site-Appears- Completed-116291839.html#comments

[87]In 1953, Washington initiated a bilateral security treaty and established a permanent troop presence in South Korea.

[88]http://news. bbc. co. uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8219669.stm, accessed on Dec 24, 2011.

[89]http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/10281073, accessed on Dec 24, 2011.

[90]http://mepopedia. com/blog/index. php?/archives/2010/05/10.html, accessed on Jan 20, 2012.

[91]C Z Chenge et al., “ARGO Science Mission”, Future Perspectives Of Space Plasma and Particle Instrumentation and International Collaborations: Proceedings of the International Conference, f 1-3 November 2006, Tokyo, AIPConf. Proc. 1144, pp. 196-200; doi:10.1063/1.3169288 (5 pages) and http://mepopedia. com/blog/index. php?/archives/2010/05/10.html, accessed on Jan 20, 2012.

[92]Zheng Bijian developed his influential thesis of China’s ‘peaceful rise’ in 2003. For details please refer Zheng Bijian, China’s Peaceful Rise Speeches of Zheng Bijian 1997-2005, (Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, 2005).

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_7, © Springer India 2013

[93]http://www. space. com/news/060405_nss_china. html, accessed on Dec 22, 2009. Author has earlier done some work on the Chinese space programme which has been published in few journals. The structure of the work presented over here in regard to China’s space programme is based on some of the author’s earlier published and unpublished works. For the main reference to this chapter, please refer author’s earlier work ‘Future of Asian Space Powers’, The Journal of Defence and Security, Vol 2, No 1, 2011 (publication of Malaysian institute of Defence and Security, MiDAS).

[94]For complete text of the White Papers, see http://www. spaceref. com/china/china. white. paper. nov. 22.2000.html (2000), http://www. china. org. cn/english/2006/Oct/183588.htm (2006), and http:// news. xinhuanet. com/english/china/2011-12/29/c_131333479.htm (2011), accessed on January 18, 2012. Also, refer for entire discussion on white papers Ajey Lele and Gunjan Singh, ‘China’s White Papers on Space: An Analysis’, IDSA Issue Brief, Jan 20, 2012, http://www. idsa. in/system/ files/IB_ChinasWhitePapersonSpaceAnAnalysis. pdf, accessed on Jan 28, 2012.

[95]Encyclopedia Astronautica: China, available at www. astronautix. com/articles/china. htm, ac­cessed on January 10, 2012.

[96]Main sources for certain information in this portion about China’s space programme are :KK Nair, ‘China’s Space Programme: An Overview’, Air Power, Vol 1, No 1, Monsoon 2004 and Ajey Lele, ‘China as a Space Power’, Strategic Analysis, Apr-Jun 2002.

[97]http://www. wsichina. org/space/program. cfm? programid=5&charid=1, accessed on Sep22, 2010.

[98]http://www. space. com/14048-china-satellite-launch-breaks-rocket-record. html and www. wired. com/dangerroom/2012/04/china-rocket-launches/, accessed on Sep 12, 2012.

[99]‘China announces new launch rockets’, Feb 6, 2012 http://www. spacedaily. com/reports/China_ announces_newJaunch_rockets_999.html, accessed on Feb 8, 2012.

[100]http://www. globalsecurity. org/space/world/china/comm. htm, accessed on Sept 5, 2010.

[101]http://www. indiasummary. com/2010/09/06/china-sinosat-6-communication-satellite-launched- successfully-by-chinese/, accessed on Oct 9, 2010.

[102]http://www. sinodefence. com/space/military/fsw. asp, accessed on Feb 7, 2012.

[103]http://articles. janes. com/articles/Janes-Space-Systems-and-Industry/Yaogan-series-China. html,

accessed on Sep 14, 2012.

[105]www. astronautix. com/articles/china. htm, accessed on Jul 23, 2009.

[106]http://www. planetary. org/blog/article/00002655/ and http://rt. com/news/fhobos-grund-mission- 123/ and http://www. spacedaily. com/reports/Yinghuo_Was_Worth_It_999.html, accessed on Nov 12,2011.

[107]http://www. space. com/news/060405_nss_china. html

[108]Annual Report to Congress, The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2005, (Washington, D. C.: Office of the Secretary of Defense, July 2005), p.36 http://www. defenselink. mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china. pdf

[109]This quotation, supposedly made by John F. Kennedy, is widespread among Chinese publications and speeches. Zhao Kejin, “China Does Not Need to Start a “Space Race” with the U. S”, http:// watchingamerica. com/News/53913/china-does-not-need-to-start-a-space-race-with-the-u-s/, ac­cessed on Nov 24, 2011.

[110] The Constitution of Japan, http://www. existenz. co. jp/constitu. htm, accessed on October 23, 2009.

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_8, © Springer India 2013

[111]http://www. jaxa. jp/about/history/nal/index_e. html, accessed on August 4, 2009.

[112]“Japan appoints first space development minister: officials”, June 17, 2008, www. spacedaily. com/ /Japan_appoints_first_space_development_minister_officials_999.html

[113]http://www. daviddarling. info/encyclopedia/J/Japanese_launch_vehicles. html, accessed on Aug 4,

2009.

[115]http://www. fas. org/nuke/guide/japan/missile/index. html, accessed on Aug 6, 2009.

[116]http://www. jaxa. jp/projects/rockets/h2a/index_e. html, accessed on September 2, 2009.

[117]http://www. jaxa. jp/projects/rockets/htv/index_e. html and http://www. jaxa. jp/projects/rockets/ h2b/index_e. html, accessed on Dec12, 2011.

information on various satellite systems launched by Japan is available at http://www. daviddarling. info/encyclopedia/J/Japan_in_space. html

[119]Super 301 (first passed by congress in 1988 for two years) is essentially a congressional prod to make the administration use an existing trade law (Section 301) to spur the administration into tougher action against other countries’ allegedly unfair trading practices. While it requires the US trade representative to cite countries in order of priority for US strong-arm action under procedures and deadlines set by Section 301, in practice, it leaves considerable leeway to the administration. How the administration uses that discretion will be the key. Super 301 also carried a great deal of political baggage. It symbolised US exploitation of its superpower status to force other countries to bend to US interests, bypassing agreed international procedures in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Please refer Reginald Dale, ‘Super 301:A Trade “Monster” It Isn’t’, April 9, 1993, The New York Times.

[120]http://tcc. export. gov/Trade_Agreements/All_Trade_Agreements/Japan_satellite_AG_guide. asp, accessed on Aug 31, 2009.

[121]‘Japan Moves to End Ban on Military Use of Space’, Friday, 2 June 2006, http://www. redorbit. com/news/space/524034/japan_moves_to_end_ban_on_military_use_of_space/index. html

[122]The bill is available at http://ukinjapan. fco. gov. uk/resources/en/pdf/5606907/5633988/The_Bill_ of_Basic_Space_Law. pdf, accessed on Oct 12, 2009.

[123]‘Japan Passes law to allow military use of space: official’, Space War, May 21, 2008.

[124]http://rescommunis. wordpress. com/2009/07/22/space-in-japans-defense-white-paper/, accessed on Oct 20, 2009.

[125]‘The Basic of Japan’s Defence Policy and Build-up of Defence Capability’, Defence of Japan, 2009, Part 2. Also, please refer the issues related to Space discussed in Japan’s Defence White Paper available at http://www. mod. go. jp/e7publ/wpaper/2009.html, accessed on Sep 12, 2009.

[126]The US manned mission to the Moon is within Earth’s planetary system.

[127]This periodic comet is visible after every 75-76 years. In the recent past, it was visible during 1986 and next would be visible during 2061.

[128]http://www. jaxa. jp/projects/sat/solar_b/index_e. html, accessed on October 31, 2009.

[129]The following discussion on the first Moon mission is based on Brian Harvey, The Japanese and Indian Space Programmes, (Springer: Chichester, 2000), pp.42-43, http://www. spacetoday. org/ Japan/Japan/MUSES_A_Hiten. html and http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Hiten, accessed on October 31,2009.

[130]It may be noted that Japanese system of naming its satellites is so unconventional that Muses B (Haruka) is a radio astronomy mission. While Hayabusa (Muses-C) has been developed to

investigate asteroids.

[132]These are objects normally 50 m or more in diameter in a near-Earth orbit without a tail or coma

of a comet.

[134]In conversation with Mr Yukihito Kitazawa, IHI Corporation, Japan.

[135]APSCO has started its operations in Beijing during December 2008, 16 years after the idea was put forward. It has seven member states, China, Bangladesh, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru and Thailand. Indonesia and Turkey have also signed the APSCO convention. Representatives from Argentina, Malaysia, the Philippines, Russia and Sri Lanka also attended the founding ceremony.

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_9, © Springer India 2013

[136]Speech by Dr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President Republic Of Indonesia, ‘Indonesia and America: a 21st Century Partnership’, at a USINDO Luncheon, Washington DC, 14 Nov 2008.

[137]Aceh is a region in Indonesia, which incidentally was very close to the epicentre of the infamous Indian Ocean earthquake which triggered 2004 tsunami killing; approximately 170,000 Indonesians were killed.

[138]Edward Aspinall, ‘Aceh/Indonesia: Conflict Analysis and Options for Systemic Conflict Trans­formation a report prepared for the Berghof Foundation for Peace Support’, August 2005, p.2 and Matthew N. Davies, Indonesia’s War over Ache, Routledge, London, 2006

[139]http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Palapa, accessed on Sep 30, 2011.

[140]A global communications leader with more than four decades of experience, Intelsat helps service providers, broadcasters, corporations and governments deliver information and entertainment anywhere in the world, instantly, securely and reliably.

[141]The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p.311.

[142]Indosat is a leading telecommunication and information provider in Indonesia that provides cellular, fixed telecommunication and multimedia, data communication and Internet (MIDI). The details are available at http://www. indosat. com/AboutJndosat/Corporate_Profile/History, accessed on Oct 21, 2011.

[143]Toto Marnanto Kadri and Adi Sadewo Salatun, ‘Indonesian LAPAN-TUBSAT Micro-Satellite Development’, presentation given by these LAPAN officials at Bangalore, India, Nov 2007, http://www. aprsaf. org/data/aprsaf14_data/day2/P07_LAPAN%20APRSAF-14%20Plenary1c. pdf and http://space. skyrocket. de/doc_sdat/lapan-tubsat. htm, accessed on Oct 20, 2011.

[144]The Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is being built by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO—constituting various states and organisations) to coordinate interna­tional efforts (period 2005-2015) in respect of environmental data and decision-support tools. http://www. earthobservations. org/geoss. shtml, and www. prime-pco. com/geoss/pdf/day1/Country/ 05Jndonesia. pdf, accessed on Dec 2, 2011.

nhttp://space. skyrocket. de/doc_sdat/indostar-1.htm and http://www. lyngsat. com/cw1.html, accessed on Sep 28, 2011.

[146]‘Indonesian Indostar II Satellite Successfully Launched’, May 19, 2009, http://www. defencetalk. com/indonesian-indostar-ii-satellite-launched-18990/, and http://www. space-travel. com/reports/ ILS_Proton_Launches_Indostar_II_Protostar_II_Satellite_999.html, accessed on Sep 28, 2011.

[147]Based on the presentation given by Mr Toto Marnanto Kadri from LAPAN at the 17th Session Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum (APRSAF-17) during Nov 2010, Melbourne, Australia, available at www. aprsaf. org/data/data/Day2-cs^1200_T_Marnanto_Kadri. pdf, accessed on Sep 24, 2011.

[148]http://www. space-travel. com/reports/Indonesia_launches_rocket_into_space_999.html, accessed

on Sep 24, 2011.

[150]Malaysia, Singapore & Brunei, Lonely Planet (this book is available in its electronic version.),

2009, pp. 32-49.

[152]Breaking New Scientific Frontiers, INSIGHTCS@MASTIC, Volume 7 October 2008 Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation Malaysia Publication, p.6 and M. Ansdell, L. Delgado, D. Hendrickson, ‘Analyzing the Development Paths of Emerging Spacefaring Nations: Opportunities or Challenges for Space Sustainability?’, April 2011, Capstone Research, pp. 12-14.

[153]Presentation by Mohd. Alauddin Mohd. Ali from the Institute of Space Science, ‘Space Activities in Malaysia’, available at www. oosa. unvienna. org/pdf/sap/hsti//HSTI. Alauddin. pdf, accessed on Dec 2, 2011 and M. Ansdell, L. Delgado, D. Hendrickson, ‘Analyzing the Development Paths of Emerging Spacefaring Nations: Opportunities or Challenges for Space Sustainability?’, April 2011, Capstone Research, pp. 12-14 and Statement by Prof. Datuk Dr. Mazlan Othman Head of the Malaysian Delegation at UNISPACE III conference, www. un. org/events/unispace3/speeches/ 20mal. htm, accessed on Nov 26, 2011

[154]Malaysian Space Dream: Is it okay with just CANSAT and Water Rocket?,

malfly. blogspot. com/ …/malaysian-space-dream-is-it-okay-with. html, Oct 5, 2011, accessed on Dec 10, 2011.

[155]Most of the information of Vietnam’s space programme is from Ajey Lele, ‘India – Vietnam Space Cooperation: Looking for New Frontiers’, http://sspconline. org/opinion/ IndiaVietnamSpaceCooperationNewFrontiers_14092011, Sept 14, 2011, accessed on Dec 2, 2011.

[156]Presentation by Prof. Doan Minh Chung from the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, ‘Space Technology Development in Vietnam’, at Istanbul during Sep 2010, http://www. tubitak. gov. tr/tubitak_content_files//spaceworkshop/presentations/Chung. DoanMinh. pdf, accessed on Nov 30f, 2011.

[157]‘Vietnam Selecting Belgium For Second EO Satellite’, Jul 29, 2011, http://www. spacemart. com/reports/Vietnam_Selecting_Belgium_For_Second_EO_Satellite_999.html, accessed on Nov 14, 2011.

[158]‘Japan Grants US$ 1.2 billion of ODA for Vietnam’, Nov 3, 2011, http://www. vccinews. com/

news_detail. asp? news_id=24651 and ‘Japan to offer ODA for Vietnam’, Aug 14, 2011, http://www. houseofjapan. com/local/japan-to-offer-oda-for-vietnam, accessed on Dec 6, 2011.

[160]It was established in 1993 to enhance space activities in the Asia-Pacific region and presently 269 organisations from 33 countries and region and 22 international organisations are members of this forum and presentation by Prof. Doan Minh Chung from the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, ‘Space Technology Development in Vietnam’, at Istanbul during Sept 2010, http:// www. tubitak. gov. tr/tubitak_content_files//spaceworkshop/presentations/Chung. DoanMinh. pdf, accessed on Nov 30, 2011.

[161]http://esciencenews. com/articles/2011/04/20/singapores. first. locally. made. satellite. launched.

space, accessed on Sep 26, 2011.

*This argument is based on Aaron Karp, Ballistic Missile Proliferation the Politics and Technics, Sipri, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 52-56.

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_10, © Springer India 2013

[164]As per international estimates, North Korea could have exploded a half kiloton device (Hiroshima was 12 kiloton). This test is regarded as a partial failure.

[165]http://www. cablegatesearch. net/cable. php? id=09STATE98749, accessed on May 22, 2011.

[166]http://www. armscontrol. org/documents/icoc, accessed on Jun 12, 2011.

[167]Asia Report N° 168, ‘North Korea’s Nuclear And Missile Programs’, 18 June 2009, http:// www. ciisisgroup. org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/168-north-koreas-nuclear-and- missile-programs. aspx, accessed on July 30, 2011.

[168]‘U. S. officials: North Korea tests long-range missile’

July 04, 2006, http://articles. cnn. com/2006-07-04/world/korea. missile_1_long-range-missile- long-range-test-taepodong-1?_s=PM:WORLD, accessed Feb 12, 2011.

1 Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, Issue 50, ed. Duncan Lennox, (Surrey: Jane’s Information Group, January 2009), 102-103 as mentioned in http://www. missilethreat. com/missilesoftheworld/ id.166/missile_detail. asp, accessed Feb 12, 2011.

[170]Asia Report №168, ‘North Korea’s Nuclear And Missile Programs’, 18 June 2009, p.25, http:// www. ciisisgroup. org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/168-north-koreas-nuclear-and- missile-programs. aspx, accessed on July 30, 2011.

[171]The six-party talks began as an aftermath of North Korean nuclear programme in 2003. The states involved are both the Koreas, China, Japan, the USA and Russia.

[172]For a detail study for the Iran’s Safir rocket please refer Rajaram Nagappa et al., Iran’s Safir launch Vehicle, NIAS Study 2009, NIAS Pulbication, Bangalore, 2009.

[173]The Shahab 3 is a medium-range, liquid-propellant ballistic missile. Ghadr-1 is believed to be a more accurate version of Shahab 3. Iran has developed a number of variants to the original Shahab 3 missile. These have been referred to by various intelligence and media sources as the Shahab 3A, Shahab 3B, Shahab 3D, Shahab 3 M, Ghadr-1, and Qadr-1. The Shahab 3 has also been used as the basis for an Iranian space program, and these rockets have been called Kavoshgar-1, IRIS, and Safir. Please refer http://www. missilethreat. com/missilesoftheworld/id.190/missile_detail. asp, accessed on Aug 1, 2011.

[174]http://www. spacewar. com/reports/Iran_successfuUy_launches_sateUite_into_space_Al- Alam_TV_999.html, accessed Jul 17, 2011.

[175]The regime comprises ‘Guidelines for Sensitive Missile-Relevant Transfers’ and an annex of con­trolled equipment and technologies. The annex of controlled equipment and technology is divided into ‘Category I’ and ‘Category II’ items. It includes equipment and technology, both military and dual-use, that are relevant to missile development, production and operation. According to the Guidelines, export of Category I items is subject to a presumption of denial. Category I includes complete rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles and sounding rockets); unmanned air-vehicle systems such as cruise missiles, target and reconnaissance drones; specially designed production facilities for these systems; and certain complete subsystems such as rocket engines or stages, re-entry vehicles, guidance sets, thrust-vector controls and warhead safing, arming, fuzing and firing mechanisms. The transfer of Category I production equipment will not be authorised. Please refer http://www. reachingcriticalwill. org/political/missiles/mtcr. html, accessed on Aug 4, 2011.

[176]The theoretical meaning of the word gimbal is the pivoted support that allows the rotation of an object about a single axis. In rocket science, this term is used to describe the swinging movement of a rocket engine.

[177]http://www. cablegatesearch. net/cable. php? id=09STATE98749, accessed on Jun 15, 2011.

[178]http://www. un. org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc. htm, accessed on Jun 26, 2011.

[179]http://www. nti. org/ejesearch/profiles/Israel/Missile/index. html, accessed on Jul 24, 2011.

[180]Re-entry phase is a portion of the trajectory of a ballistic missile or space vehicle where there is a significant interaction of the vehicle and the Earth’s atmosphere.

[181]Intercept of incoming missile can take place either inside (endoatmospheric) or outside (exoat­mospheric) the Earth’s atmosphere. The trajectory of most ballistic missiles travels both the regions—inside as well as outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The engagement with the target can take place in either of these regions, and they can be intercepted either place.

[182]Over the years, they have tested various technologies associated with this system. In spite of

many years of research and development, missile defence is yet to emerge as a fully successful and functional system. However, the system is operational in parts, and the ground-based interceptors have been deployed since 2004.

[184]http://www. defenseindustrydaily. com/israel-successfully-tests-arrow-theater-missile-defense- 01571/

[185]http://intelligencesinfo. wordpress. com/2011/03/31/indian-pursuit-of-ballistic-missile-defence- program-%E2%80%93-analysis/, accessed on July 16, 2011.

[186]‘Chinese missile defence’, The Economist, Jan 14, 2010.

[187]http://www. defence. pk/forums/wmd-missiles/24457-pakistan-may- seek-chinese-interceptor- missile-defense-2012-a. html, accessed on July 23, 2011.

[188]Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary on Dec 19, 2003, http://www. kantei. go. jp/foreign/ tyokan/2003/1219danw^e. html, accessed on May 15, 2011.

[189]The discussion in first two paragraphs of this section is based on Ajey Lele, ‘India Investing in MIRV Technology’, Oct 22, 2009, http://www. ipcs. org/article/india/india-investing-in-mirv- technology-2987.html, accessed on Jul 30, 2011.

[190]Bill Gertz, Betrayal, Washington DC: Regnery Publishers, 1999, p.251-254 as quoted in http://www. nti. org/db/china/wwhmdat. htm

[191]‘India’s latest strategic weapon’, The Hindu, May 8, 2008.

[192]http://www. space-travel. com/reports/PSLV_Launches_Ten_Satellites_999.html, accessed on Mar 12, 2011.

[193]http://www. jaxa. jp/projects/rockets/h2/index_e. html, accessed Mar 08, 2011.

[194] http://www. insidegnss. com/node/1806, accessed on May 28, 2011.

[195]http://waas. stanford. edu/research/loran. htm, accessed on Mar 28, 2011.

[196]http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Omeg^(navigation_system), accessed on Mar 28, 2011.

[197]http://www. fas. org/spp/military/program/nav/transit. htm and http://www. experiencefestival. com/ a/Satellite_navigation_system_-.History_and_theory/id/1793498, accessed on Mar 23, 2011.

[198]http://www. astronautix. com/craft/tsiklon. htm, accessed on Mar 28, 2011.

[199]www. vectorsite. net/ttgps_2.html, accessed on Apr 15, 2011.

[200]http://www. expeiiencefestival. com/a/Satellite_navigation_system_-.History _and_theory/id/ 1793498, accessed on Feb 18, 2011.

[201]Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was shot down by Soviet interceptors on September 1, 1983, killing 269 passengers. The aircraft was shot when it strayed into prohibited Soviet airspace around the time of a planned missile test. Subsequently, it was decided that the US military would make the GPS available for civilian use so as to avoid any further navigational in the future.

[202]http://www. gpsdaily. com/reports/Russia_To_Start_Operating_New_Glonass_K_Satellite_By_Year_

End_999.html

[203]http://ec. europa. eu/enterprise/policies/satnav/galileo/satellite-launches/index_en. htm, accessed on Sep 17, 2012.

[204]http://www. spacenews. com/civil/100310-initial-galileo-validation-satellites-delayed. html

[205]www. oosa. unvienna. org/pdf/limited/c1/AC105_C1_L287E. pdf

[206]MTSAT is the Multifunctional Transport Satellite with a dual function of air traffic control (ATC) and navigation and meteorology. Various agencies like Ministry of Land, Infrastructure

and Transport and Japan Meteorological Agency have stakes in this.

[208]All the inputs on MSAS are based on http://www. insidegnss. com/node/107 and http://www. eurocontrol. int/nexsat/gallery/content/public/Steermg%20Group/Meeting10/MTSAT_2009. 324NextSAT_MTSAT_Status_ver.2.pdf, accessed on May 9, 2011.

[209]http://www. bipm. org/cc/CCTF/Allowed/16/cctf04-11.pdf, accessed on Feb 10, 2012.

[210]http://www. bipm. org/cc/CCTF/Allowed/16/cctffl4-11.pdfSAS and http://www. jaxa. jp/projects/ sat/qzss/index_e. html, accessed on May 10, 2011and http://www. gpsworld. com/gnss-system/the- system-November-2007-4187, accessed on Feb 10, 2012.

[211]Joint announcement on United States-Japan GPS Cooperation, Washington, DC, January 14,

2011, http://www. state. gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/01/154688.htm and http://www. panorientnews. com/ en/news. php? k=670

[213]http://www. globalsecurity. org/space/world/china/beidou. htm (Accessed June 12, 2007) and http://www. astronautix. com/craft/beidou. htm (Accessed April 22, 2008) and ibid and g Yuankai, ‘Your Place in the World’, Beijing Review, 2009, Issue 27, pp. 16-19.

[214]http://news. xinhuanet. com/english/sci/2012-09/19/c_131859942.htm, accessed on Sep 19, 2012.

[215]http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Beidou_navigation_system, accessed on Dec 24, 2011.

[216]http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/technology-16337648?print=true, accessed on Jan 12, 2012.

[217]http://www. spacedaily. com/reports/Chin^satellite_navigation_sector_annuaLoutput_predicted_ to_reach_35_bln_USD_in_2015_999.html, accessed on Jan 25, 2012.

[218]Even though Beidou-1 is recognised as a first-generation system like most other navigational systems, it is not a passive system. This constellation is a two-way system capable of sending messages to the control centre through satellites.

[219]Three satellite-receiver ranges are needed for a position fix; a fourth satellite could increase the

area of coverage and provide redundant measurements.

[221]http://defensetech. org/2006/08/03/compass-chinese-satnav-or-galileo-bluff/

[222]http://www. defence. pk/forums/india-defence/68197-indian-regional-navigational-sate]lite-

system-irnss. html

[223]www. derm. qld. gov. au/gnss/systems. html, accessed on Apr 24, 2011.

[224]http://www. spacedaily. com/reports/Success_of_GSAT_8_and_Future_ofJndia_Space_Progra mme_999.html, accessed on Jun 15, 2011.

[225]http://www. insidegnss. com/node/2665, accessed on Apr 15, 2011.

[226]‘Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) and Indian Agreement’ http://wordinfo. info/ unit/3935?letter=G&spage=3, accessed on Jun 22, 2011.

[227]The Hindu, Dec 22, 2010.

[228] ‘Russia, India to cooperate in production of satellite navigation equipment’, http://www. gpsdaily. com/reports/Russia_India_to_cooperate_in_production_of_satellite_navigation_equipment_999. html, Dec 29, 2011, accessed on Dec 29, 2011.

[229]http://www. oosa. unvienna. org/oosa/es/SAP/gnss/icg. html, accessed on Apr 05, 2011.

[230]Report on the United Nations/United States of America International Meeting on the Use and Applications of Global Navigation Satellite Systems, (Vienna, 13-17 December 2004), available at http://www. oosa. unvienna. org/pdf/reports/ac105/AC10V846E. pdf, accessed on Jun10, 2011.

[231]http://www. oosa. unvienna. org/oosa/es/SAP/gnss/icg. html, accessed on Mar 10, 2011.

[232]http://www. oosa. unvienna. org/pdf/publications/icg_book01E. pdf, accessed on Jun 19, 2011.

Part of this chapter draws from the author’s earlier work An Asian Moon Race?, Space Policy, 26

(2010), pp. 222-228

[234]The regions beyond the gravitational influence of Earth encompassing interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space. This definition is available at http://www. thefreedictionary. com/deep+ space, accessed on March 31, 2009.

[235]www. spacedaily. com/reports/Why_The_Moon_999.html – 25k, accessed on March 30, 2009 and http://www. nasa. gov/exploration/home/why_moon. html, accessed on Feb 13, 2012.

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_12, © Springer India 2013

[236]www. msnbc. msn. com/id/3688344/, accessed on Apr 1, 2009 and http://adsabs. harvard. edu/abs/ 2003AdSpR..31.2363S, accessed on Feb 12, 2012.

[237]http://www. jspec. jaxa. jp/e/activity/selene2.html, accessed on Feb 12, 2012 and Satoshi Tanaka, Hiroaki Shiraishi, Manabu Kato, Tatsuaki Okada, ‘The science objectives of the SELENE-2 mission as the post SELENE mission’, Advances in Space Research 42 (2008) 394-401.

[238]http://www. planetary. org/explore/topics/kaguya/objectives. html, accessed on Jan 12, 2009.

[239]http://www. kaguya. jaxa. jp/en/about/about_sat_e. htm, accessed on Dec 14, 2008.

[240]The relay satellite ‘OKINA (RSTAR)’ made an impact on the lunar surface on February 12, 2009 (JST), and the four-way Doppler measurement mission was successfully completed.

[241]In Japan, the Usuda Deep Space Center was established in Usuda Town (new name—Saku City from Apr. 2005) to conduct command operations and receive data from deep space probes.

The uplinked radio wave from Usuda is relayed to main orbiter, which is returned to Usuda via relay satellite again, and Doppler frequency is measured at Usuda. This information is available at official JAXA website, and also please refer the succeeding note.

[243]During informal conversation with S. K. Shivakumar, director of the ISRO’s Telemetry Tracking and Command Network.

[244]At 40th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2009), on March 24, 2009, ‘Lunar Missions: Results from Kaguya, Chang’e-1 and Chandrayan 1’ were presented, and the details are available at http://www. lpi. usra. edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/sess301.pdf, accessed on Apr 14, 2009. This information is technical in nature and discusses mainly the performance of the sensors and method to decipher data from the data obtained from these missions. Also, please refer, Science 13 February 2009, Vol. 323. No. 5916, this issue has articles analysing the details based on the data made available by the Japanese Moon mission.

[245]‘Chandrayaan’s Moon findings: Water, rocks and traces of Apollo’, Oct 22, 2009, http://news. in. msn. com/national/article. aspx? cp-documentid=3303481&page=0, accessed on Jun 12, 2011, and Ninad Bondre, ‘Planetary science: Wet moon dry Earth’, Nature Geoscience 2, 746 (2009).

[246]Geographical feature on the Moon.

[247]‘China’s second lunar probe completes 6 months’, Sept 6, 2011, http://lunarscience. nasa. gov/ articles/chinas-second-lunar-probe-completes-6-months, accessed on Sept 7, 2011.

[248]It is a point where gravitational forces and the orbital motion of a body balance each other. There are five Lagrangian points in the Sun-Earth system, and the Chang’e-2 has reached one of those nearest to Earth. Lying in the Earth’s shadow, this Lagrangian point is exposed to less radiation from the sun than other Lagrangian points, and it is an ideal place for scientists to put space telescopes when they want to observe the universe. ‘China’s second lunar probe reaches deep space’, China Daily, Aug 31, 2011, available at http://www. ecns. cn/2011/08-31/2048.shtml, accessed on Sept 2, 2011.

[249]‘China’s second moon orbiter Chang’e-2 goes to outer space’, Jun 10, 2011. http://www. spacedaily. com/reports/China_second_moon_orbiter_Change_2_goes_to_outer_space_ 999.html, accessed on Sept 7, 2011 and ‘China’s second lunar probe reaches deep space’, China Daily, Aug 31, 2011, available at http://www. ecns. cn/2011/08-31/2048.shtml, accessed on Sept 2, 2011.

[250]Moon is seismically stable and has no winds hence offers a stable platform for observation, would

allow scientists to extend the energy range of solar spectra below the energy cutoffs imposed by Earth’s atmosphere, observations would be free of complicating geomagnetic effects.

[252]“Missions to Mars Past Present and Future” http://www. disabled-world. com/entertainment/ hobby/astronomy/mars-missions. php, accessed on Aug 20, 2011.

[253]The Mars-94 and Mars-96 Missions [and Discussion] Author(s): Alexander V. Zakharov and H. Fechtig Source: Philosophical Transactions: Physical Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 349, No. 1690, The Solar-System: A Review of Results from Space Missions (Nov. 15, 1994), pp. 295-307 Published by: The Royal Society.

[254]‘China’s Yinghuo-1 Mars’, Sept 9, 2010, Orbiter http://www. planetary. org/blog/

article/00002655/linkinghub. elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/linkinghub. elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/ S0275106210000172, accessed on Sept 9, 2011. The information in this blog is based on two different papers written by Chinese scientists in Chinese journals. There are some variations (mostly minor) in the information provided in these papers.

[255]‘China Likely to Launch First Probe To Explore Mars’ Surface In 2013’, Mar 03, 2011, http:// news. xinhuanet. com/english2010/china/2011-03/02/c_13757750.htm, and Morris Jones, ‘China Goes To Mars’, http://www. spacedaily. com/reports/China_Goes_To_Mars_999.html accessed on May 15, 2011.

[256]Details of this experiment are available on http://mars500.imbp. ru/en/index_e. html, accessed on Jan 2, 2012.

[257]White House science adviser John Holdren before testifying May 4 before the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice and science. ‘Obama sees China as a partner in Mars mission’, Jun 5, 2011, http://www. msnbc. msn. com/id/42934529/ns/technology_and_science- space/t/obama-sees-china-partner-mars-mission/#, accessed on Sept 6, 2011.

[258]http://www. firstpost. com/tech/indias-mars-mission-to-begin-november-2013-459232.html, accessed on Sep 19, 2012.

[259]Helium-3 is expected to help greatly towards resolving the energy crisis on the Earth.

[260]States are looking at Antarctica model for Moon—the earlier you reach you are suitably positioned to grab the peace of ‘Earth’ for your state. A permanent base has a major military relevance too. Also, such a (zero gravity) base can help significantly research and development activities.

[261]J Vedda, n-4, p. 24.

[262] ‘Shooting the Moon’, The Economist, Sept 27, 2008, p.40.

[263]‘India’s Quest for Energy Security: The Oil and Gas Perspective’, Speech delivered by Murli Deora, India’s Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, at Rice University on March 31, 2006; available at www. bakerinstitute. org.

[264]From the lecture delivered by M. M. Pallaum Raju, India’s Minister of State for Defence, in the “P. C. Lal Memorial Lecture” organised by the Air Force Association on March 19, 2007, at New Delhi.

[265]Various retired armed forces officials have expressed this opinion.

[266]www. fas. org.

integrated HQ of MoD (Navy) and Confederation of Indian Industry, Building India’s Navy: Requirements and Indigenous Capability, 2010, available at http://www. ciidefence. com/

[268]The Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major made an announcement to this effect

at Aero India, Bangalore in February 2009.

[270]“India’s spy satellite RISAT placed in orbit”, Apr 20, 2009, http://news. rediff. com/report/2009/

apr/20/indias-spy-satellite-iisat-placed-in-orbit. htm, accessed on Jul 12, 2011and MR Venkatesh, “RISAT-2 not a spy satellite, says ISRO chief’, Hindustan Times, April 20, 2009.

[272]Stephen Clark, “China Launches New Spy Satellite”, Aug 10, 2010, http://www. space. com/ 8923-china-launches-spy-satellite. html and Rui C. Barbosa, “China completes 2009 schedule by launching another spy satellite”, Dec 15, 2009, http://www. nasaspaceflight. com/2009/12/ china-completes-2009-schedule-by-launching-another-spy-satellite/ and “China launches new Yaogan XI ‘remote sensing’ satellite”, Sept 22, 2010 http://www. china-defense-mashup. com/ china-launches-new-yaogan-xi-remote-sensing-satellite. html, accessed on Sept 18, 2011.

[273]“Selling Spy Satellites to China”, The New York Times, Jun 19, 1998.

[274]Kate Wilkinson in an interview with Saadia Pekkanen on Sept 9, 2011, http://www. nbr. org/ research/activity. aspx? id=173 assessed on Aug 20, 2011, Saadia M. Pekkanen is the joint author (along with Paul Kallender-Umezu) of the book tilted In Defense of Japan: From the Market to the Military in Space Policy, Stanford University Press, 2010.

[275]John Feffer, “Japan: The Price of Normalcy”, January 13, 2009, http://www. fpif. org/fpiftxt/5780

[276]“Japan Moves to End Ban on Military Use of Space”, Friday, 2 June 2006, http://www. redorbit. com/news/space/524034/japan_moves_to_end_ban_on_military_use_of_space/index. html, accessed on Oct 20, 2009.

[277]The bill is available at http://ukinjapan. fco. gov. uk/resources/en/pdf/5606907/5633988/The_Bill_ of_Basic_Space_Law. pdf, accessed on Oct 12, 2009.

[278]“Japan Passes law to allow military use of space: official”, Space War, May 21, 2008.

[279]http://rescommunis. wordpress. com/2009/07/22/space-in-japans-defense-white-paper/, accessed on Oct 20, 2009.

[280]“The Basic of Japan’s Defence Policy and Build-up of Defence Capability”, Defence of Japan, 2009, Part 2. Also, please refer the issues related to Space discussed in Japan’s Defence White Paper available at http://www. mod. go. jp/e/publ/w_paper/2009.html, accessed on Sept 12, 2009.

[281]http://factsanddetails. com/japan. php? itemid=819&catid=22&subcatid=148 and James Dunni – gan, “Japan Loses 25 Percent of Their Spy Satellites” Sept 17, 2010, http://www. strategypage. com/ dls/articles/Japan-Loses-25-Percent-Of-Their-Spy-Satellites-9-17-2010.asp, accessed on Sept 20, 2011.

[282]“Development in the high resolution imaging satellites for the military”, Space policy 27 (2011) p.46 and “Israel launches spy satellite”, Jun 23, 2010, http://english. aljazeera. net/news/middleeast/ 2010/06/20106239424671297.html, accessed on Jun 24, 2011 and “Russian rocket launches Israeli dual-use spy satellite over Iran”, Apr 27, 2006, http://www. worldtribune. com/worldtribune/06/ front2453852.238888889.html, accessed on Jun 24, 2011.

[283]“South Korea to purchase four spy satellites by 2020”, Oct 21, 2009, http://theasiandefence. blogspot. com/2009/10/south-korea-to-purchase-four-spy. html, accessed on Aug 21, 2011.

[284]“Emirates close to French satellite buy”, Dec 23, 2011, http://www. spacemart. com/reports/ Emirates_close_to_French_satellite_buy_999.html, accessed on Dec 26, 2011.

[285]Annual Report to Congress, The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2005, (Washington, D. C.: Office of the Secretary of Defense, July 2005), p.36, http://www. defenselink.

mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china. pdf.

[287]http://www. jsc. nasa. gov/Bios/htmlbios/wang-t. html, accessed on Aug 7, 2011.

[288]http://www. jsc. nasa. gov/Bios/htmlbios/al-saud. html, accessed on Aug 7, 2011.

[289]http://www. astronomytoday. com/astronomy/interview10.html, accessed on Aug 7, 2011.

[290]http://www. spacefacts. de/bios/international/english/muszaphar_sheikh. htm and http://www.

spacefacts. de/bios/international/english/lee_so-hyun. htm, accessed on Aug 1, 2011.

[291]“Japan’s Hope in Space”, Highlighting Japan through articles, pp.8-9, http://www. gov-online. go. jp/pdf/hlj_ar/voL0027e/08-09.pdf, accessed on Aug 9, 2011.

[292]http://www. nasa. gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/jem. html, accessed on Aug 4, 2011.

[293]Incidentally, the space laboratory on ISS known as Kibo also means HOPE.

[294]http://forum. nasaspaceflight. com/index. php? topic=26143.0, Project Gemini was the second hu­man space flight programme of NASA. This programme was an intermediate step between Mercury and Apollo programme. During mid-1960s, it carried out ten successful manned space missions. http://www-pao. ksc. nasa. gov/kscpao/history/gemini/gemini-overview. htm

[295]http://www. sinodefence. com/space/military/fsw. asp and http://forum. nasaspaceflight. com/index. php? topic=26143.0

[296]Pan Zhenqiang, ‘Shenzhou VI and China’s Space Flight’, Foreign Affairs Journal (78), 2005, pp. 53-54 and http://www. astronautix. com/craft/shenzhou. htm. However, there appears to be certain delay in this regard.

[297]‘The Significance and Implications of Tiangong I’, http://www. idsa. in/idsacomments/ TheSignificanceandImplicationsofTiangong_alele_071011, accessed on Nov 22, 2011.

[298]http://www. scientificamerican. com/article. cfm? id=chinas- first – space-lab-ti&print=true

[299]The 8-ton China space station is very small in size in comparison earlier attempts by few other states. In 1973, the US Skylab was launched weighing 80 tons. Russia’s Mir space station (1986­2001) was a 22-ton core module. The ISS is 450 ton. However, it is important to note that Tiangong – 1is more of an excremental station, and China’s proposed station is likely to weigh 60-70 ton.

[300]http://www. chinadaily. com. cn/cndy/2011-11/18/content_14115516.htm, accessed on Nov 22, 2011.

[301]http://www. space. com/16170-china-launches-1st-female-astronaut-shenzhou-9.html, accessed on Sep 20, 2012.

[302] http://www. space. com/11048- china – space – station-plans – details. html

[303]These hypersonic aircrafts are designed to achieve orbital height and velocity in a single stage from a runway takeoff.

[304]This is being developed by India’s defence research organisation DRDO jointly with ISRO. One vehicle is expected to last for 100 launches and should carry a payload of 50-1,000 kg. For more, please visit http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Indian_Space_Shuttle_Program, accessed on Jul 12, 2011.

[305]From the unpublished work by Keith Gottschalk and Raghavan Gopalaswami titled ‘Even India’: The Birth of Tomorrow’s RLV. It may be noted that Air Commodore (Retd) Raghavan Gopalaswami was the project leader of Avatar project and is also created to have coined the name. Also, refer author’s discussions with Raghavan Gopalaswami.

[306]http://space. skyrocket. de/doc_sdat/sre-1.htm, accessed on Jul 12, 2011.

[307]http://articles. janes. com/articles/Janes-Space-Systems-and-Industry/Space-Recovery- Experiment-SRE-India. html

[308]http://www. isro. org/scripts/futureprogramme. aspx

[309]The entire above information on RLV-TD project is based on “Reusable Launch Vehicle – Tech­nology Demonstrator (RLV-TD)”, http://knol. google. com/k/reusable-launch-vehicle-technology- demonstrator-rlv-td#, accessed on Aug 27, 2011 and http://www. isro. org/scripts/futureprogramme. aspx, accessed on Aug 16, 2011.

[310]“ISRO starts work on man mission”, Mar 1, 2010, http://indiatoday. intoday. in/site/story/ISRO+ starts+work+on+’man+mission’/1/86202.html, accessed on Aug 14, 2011.

[311]http://www. isro. org/scripts/futureprogramme. aspx, accessed on Aug 14, 2011.

[312]http://www. ndtv. com/article/india/soon-india-to-have-its-own-space-shuttle-123239&cp

2Young Nam Cho and Jong Ho Jeong, “China’s Soft Power”, Asian Survey, Vol XLVIII, No.

[314] May/Jun 2008, pp. 456-461. In November 2003, Zheng Bijian proposed China’s ‘peaceful rise theory’ at the Boao Asia Forum, stressing the need for China to advocate power transition while developing its own peaceful international influence. Beijing consensus: ‘Since China began undertaking economic reforms in 1978, its economy has grown at a rate of nearly ten percent a year, and its per-capita GDP is now twelve times greater than it was three decades ago. Many analysts attribute the country’s economic success to its unconventional approach to economic policy – a combination of mixed ownership, basic property rights, and heavy government intervention. Time magazine’s former foreign editor, Joshua Cooper Ramo, has even given it a name: the Beijing consensus.’ Please refer Yang Yao, “The End of the Beijing Consensus”, Feb 2, 2010, http://www. foreignaffairs. com/articles/65947/the-end-of-the-beijing-consensus, accessed on Jun 28, 2011.

[315]This document is available on http://www. fmprc. gov. cn/eng/zxxx/t230615.htm, accessed on Feb 22, 2012.

[316]“China’s Foreign Policy and “Soft Power” In South America, Asia, And Africa”, A study prepared for the committee on foreign relations united states senate by the congressional research service, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 2008, pp. 107-108.

[317]“China’s Foreign Policy and “Soft Power” In South America, Asia, And Africa”, A study prepared for the committee on foreign relations united states senate by the congressional research service, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 2008, p.16 and Virginia de la Siega, “What is China’s interest in Latin America?”, Online magazine : IV425 – Jun 2010, http://www. mternationalviewpoint. org/spip. php? page=prmt_article&id_article=1883, accessed Oct 4, 2011.

[318]“China’s Foreign Policy and “Soft Power” In South America, Asia, And Africa”, A study prepared

for the committee on foreign relations united states senate by the congressional research service, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 2008, pp. 88-89.

[320]“China to replace Nigerian satellite”, http://www. chinadaily. com. cn/china/2009-03/25/content_ 7612718.htm, accessed on Jan 14, 2011. accessed on Aug 22, 2011.

[321]http://space. skyrocket. de/doc_sdat/venesat- 1.htm, accessed on Aug 22, 2011.

This chapter draws from the author’s earlier work “Future of Asian Space Powers” from Ajey Lele and Namrata Goswami (ed) Imagining Asia in 2030: Trends, Scenarios and Alternatives, Academic Foundation, New Delhi, 2011, pp. 243-268.

[323]http://www. sourcewatch. org/index. php? title=Andrew_Marshall, accessed on Jan 15, 2010.

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_16, © Springer India 2013

[324]Rand has published a report authored by Ashley J. Tellis et al., Measuring National Power in Post Industrial Age, 2005. Such methods of quantification could be used for measuring national power.

[325]http://oai. dtic. mil/oai/oai? verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA363499, accessed on Dec 1, 2009.

[326]It is difficult to indicate the exact financial commitments done by Japan for this project. However,

it is estimated that the overall project cost could be US$ 100 billion and Japan could be a major contributor. The Japanese science module-Kibo is the largest science module of the ISS.

[328] ‘A wary respect’, The Economist, October 22, 2009.

[329]Literature normally refers United States, Russia and European Space Agency (ESA) as tier one and Japan, China and India as tier two space powers.

[330]http://www. cnsa. gov. cn/n615709/n620682/n639462/102448.html, accessed on Dec 6, 2009.

[331]‘Ready for lift-off’, Indian Express, Oct 30, 2009.

[332]For a detailed analysis of this please refer ‘Space Security: need for a proactive approach’, IDSA – Pugwash Working Group Report, Academic Foundation, New Delhi, 2009.

[333]‘US official questions China space intentions’, Space Daily, Jan 13, 2010.

[334]“Change-2 Satellite’s Camera Resolution Reaches One Meter”, Space Daily, Jan 14, 2010.

[335]The six platinum group metals are ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium and platinum. Also refer http://www. space. com/816-resources-moon. html, accessed on Dec 29, 2011.

[336]http://www. space. com/9250-mining-rare-minerals-moon-vital-national-security. html, accessed

on Dec 29, 2011.

[338]‘ISRO seeks Russian spaceship for manned flight’, Business Standard, October 05, 2009.

[339]Ms Misuzu Onuki has published probably the first Japanese language book about NewSpace in Japan. This 203-page book, titled I Will Go to Space Next Week (2009), is a comprehensive round­up of commercial space activities being undertaken around the world. Topics include suborbital and orbital vacation options, marketing and branding opportunities and commercial projects such as zero gravity manufacturing and commercial lunar development.

[340]http://www. answers. com/topic/arms-race-overview#ixzz1i5wFjLQt, accessed on Jan 1, 2012.

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_17, 255

© Springer India 2013

[341]Mahan is famous for his masterwork on sea power (The Influence of Sea Power upon History,

1660-1783 [1890]).

[343]http://www. popularmechanics. com/science/space/4307281, accessed on Jan 8, 2011.

[344]Dark side of the moon”, Socialist Review, July/August 1999, Issue 232.

[345]For the first time since the dawn of the space age, China’s Long March rocket family eclipsed the annual flight rate of the US fleet of space launchers, http://www. space. com/14048-china-satellite- launch-breaks-rocket-record. html, accessed on Jan 9, 2011.

[346]http://www. chinadaily. com. cn/china/2011- 12/21/content_14296838.htm, accessed on Jan 4, 2012 and Economic Times, Jan 9, 2012.

[347]http://www. isro. org/Launchvehicles/PSLV/pslv. aspx, accessed on Sep 16, 2012.

[348]http://english. yonhapnews. co. kr/national/2011/12/26/34/0301000000AEN20111226001800315F. HTML, accessed on Jan 10, 2012.

As seen, the role of outer space applications has evolved considerably over last few decades for education, meteorology, resources management and communication. On the other hand, the wars fought in the post-Cold War era have brought to fore the importance of space technologies for the militaries. Both the Gulf Wars (1991 and 2003) and Afghanistan conflict (2001) has demonstrated to the world the value of space assets towards controlling the modern warfare. This has also lead to the development of space doctrines for various nation-states.

During last two to three decades, a marked increase in the development of indige­nous outer space programmes and related joint ventures has been observed. Various states in Asia are found investing to space technologies. In some cases, the space programmes are somewhat indigenous in nature while many states are developing their programmes mostly in collaboration with the USA, European Union (EU) or Russia. Nonetheless, the expansion in the number of states possessing outer space technologies is also bringing in the issue of duel-capable technologies to the fore.

The pre-1990 period could be viewed as the Space War period between the two superpowers. The USA and the erstwhile USSR had made significant investments in space-based assets. However, mostly their focus was to use the space technologies for the purposes of monitoring each other nuclear assets. In the final analysis, it could be said that the Soviets could not sustain the space domination race mainly because of economic compulsions. In regard to Asian states, it has been observed that their investments in space did not have any significant military or one-upmanship bias of the Cold War era. They were fully aware about the erstwhile USSR experience of the space race engagement. At the same time, it is also important to note that states having vital strategic objectives usually tend to modernise faster than others. Also, states having developed missile capabilities tend to have advantage in the space arena (converse is also true). Asia hosts some of the shrewdest powers in the world. Naturally, their investment in space needs to be viewed not in isolation but at the backdrop of prevailing geopolitical and geostrategic realities.

Today, the Asian states could be distributed into two broad groupings in regard to their space capabilities: satellite system holders based on borrowed technology and states with satellite launch capabilities (spacefaring nations). In today’s world, it’s not mandatory to possess all the technical capabilities to own a satellite. There are states owning satellites without having either launch capabilities and/or satellite manufacturing potential. This becomes possible because of international collaborations either done at political or commercial level. Approximately, more than 15 Asian states have their own satellites placed in outer space. The states which have successfully demonstrated launch capabilities till date are Japan, China, India, Israel and Iran. North Korea has made claims regarding successful orbital launches but scientific community is not fully convinced about it.

Amongst the Asian states mainly Japan, China and India have significant investments in the space arena. Israel also to an extent could be said to belong to this club; however, their investments are much limited in nature. All these states are capable of designing and developing their own satellites and launchers. Some of them have limitations in regard to putting heavier satellites (more than 3,000 kg) into the geostationary (36,000 km) orbits. Following table offers basic information in regard to the number of satellites in possession of individual countries in the region.

Name of country	Year of 1st launch	Payloads in orbit (2010-11)[7]
Japan	1970	127
China	1970	120
India	1975	45
Indonesia	1976	10
Israel	1988	10
Pakistan	1990	5
South Korea	1992	12
Thailand	1993	6
Turkey	1994	5
Ukraine	1995	6
Malaysia	1996	4
Philippines	1997	2
Egypt	1998	3
Singapore	1998	3
Taiwan	1999	9
Saudi Arabia	2000	12
United Arab Emirate	2000	3
Iran	2005	4
Kazakhstan	2006	2
Vietnam	2008	2

Amongst these, states like South Korea and Malaysia are keen to enhance their space capabilities and are demonstrating keenness to develop the programme in the near future. Unfortunately, South Korea has to witness failures in regard to the development of launch technologies. States like Indonesia, South Korea and Saudi Arabia have ten or more satellites in space; however, it is important to note that there is no direct correlation between the number of satellites and the space potential. What essentially this number could indicate is the interest of these states in this technology and their wiliness for monetary investments. Various other states from the region also have a considerable requirement for satellite-derived products, but they probably face financial limitations and hence do not ‘own’ any satellites. Many such states are purchasing required products either from Asian or global market to reduce the ‘deficit’ of not owning any satellite systems.

Iran and North Korea are found using space launches as a technology demonstra­tor to implicitly inform the world about their ballistic missile capability. However,

it may not be totally correct to view Iran only with the ‘missile’ label. They have demonstrated some significant achievements in the space sciences field too and have successfully undertaken few launches.

Amongst Japan-China-India, the investments and the space assets of Japan and China far exceed India. Deep space missions (missions to put satellites beyond 100,000 km—e. g. Moon and Mars missions) are one area where the journey of all these states could be more or less comparable to a certain extent. In recent times, particularly China’s progress has been most noteworthy with their successful human spaceflights and their efforts towards launching indigenous space station. China has caused a ‘space tsunami’ by successfully carrying out an antisatellite test during 2007. This has brought to the fore the issues related to the ‘weaponisation of space’.11

When issues related to space are debated at the backdrop of geostrategic realities, it becomes essential to understand the ability of space realm in regard to power projection to influence the behaviour of people or the course of events. It is important to understand military strategy and power projection premise of the issues related to space.

Japan is a wonderfully unique place and could be said to be a realm of contrasts, anomalies and anachronisms. But, at the same time, it is Asia’s first modern and industrialised nation and has been involved deeply in world trade for over four decades [1]. Contemporary Japan is a great success story of twentieth century. In various fields, Japan challenged Western hegemony and succeeded in setting world­beating standards. The world admired, applauded and envied Japan. In fact during 1980s for a short period, it appeared that Japan may even dislodge the United States from global leadership positions in certain areas [2, p. 191]. It had maintained itself as the world’s second largest economy from 1968 until 2010, till the time China overtook it. This probably happened because of the ‘rise of China’ and the change in economic and political circumstances with Japan at the end of twentieth century. Again twenty-first century has arrived with certain positive impetus to take Japan towards a brighter future.

It is important to remember that Japan could be viewed as a ‘victim’ of Peace Constitution as opposed to the view that it was not born with a Peace Constitution. The Peace Constitution was thrust upon it post-World War II by the United States [3]. Probably, it is the unique country which was ‘told’ to renounce its right to build and deploy armed forces. Their own constitution does not allow them to have a military force even for self-defence. As per the Article 9 of their constitution, they cannot use war as a sovereign right for settling international disputes and cannot maintain land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential.[110]

The positive aspect of not investing military could be that it allowed Japan to concentrate on other areas of development. Japan the only country to face the wrath of nuclear weapons emerged like a phoenix from the 1945 defeat and became one of the most powerful economies in the 1980s. One reason for this to happen could be its policy of moving away from labour-intensive textile production to consumer elec­tronics. They created a niche market for their products like television sets, radios and hi-fis. During same time, the US industry was concentrating on pioneering large – scale goods for the space programme and military industrial complex [2, pp. 31,38].

Japanese industry was found focusing more on the audio-video products and concentrating on a market involving customers from middle-class background. On the other hand, the US agencies were investing into technologies which had both economic and military ramifications in the long term. Space technology was one such technology which was attracting the attention of both the civilian and military scientists. For the US industry, also this was a challenging task. Over a period of time, the US industry started adopting technological innovations from other industries and looked for synergistic solutions for the rapid development of their space programme. On the other hand, Japan could be said to be late starter at the global level. However, same was not the case at Asian level.

Japan is the first Asian country to send satellite into the space (February 1970). It is the fourth country in space after erstwhile USSR, USA and France. Only two countries were successful in sending a satellite to the geostationary orbit before Japan and also the spacecrafts to Moon and Mars. Japan is an important participant in the International Space Station (ISS), with its own orbiting laboratory, Kibo. Onboard of the American space shuttle few Japanese have gone to the outer space also some have experience of walking in the space (spacewalk). The first media representative into the space was a Japanese journalist who flew to the Mir space station in 1990 [4, p. xii]. He was funded by a commercial enterprise that probably paid approximately $12-14 million to the Soviet Union for this launch.

Overall, though Japan is a late entrant in this field as per the global standards but has made significant contributions in the space arena. This chapter takes a closer look at the various facets of Japanese space programme inclusive of its purpose, structure, technology, international cooperation, military aspects, economics and commerce.

Bartholomaeus Pitiscus (1561-1613) was a Polish theologian who first coined the term ‘trigonometry’ which is a branch of mathematics that deals with the relationship between the angles and sides of triangles. This aspect of geometry is of wide-ranging utility to various fields of science and technology. Trigonometry has various applications for measurement of distances. The techniques based on trigonometry are used in astronomy and for navigational systems which use the triangulation method to identify the position of an object.

Navigation is important for the armed forces for various reasons. It helps in locating ground and air targets and aids reconnaissance missions. It can be used in weapon systems like missiles and artillery and aerial platforms like manned and unmanned aircrafts. Such navigation systems have various civilian application uses too.

Navigational systems are assuming increasing importance because of its strategic applications and commercial utility. This chapter analyses the relevance of the Asian investments in navigational systems. There are certain complexities associated with navigational systems. The entire notion of navigation by using satellite means has evolved over decades. Asia is relatively a new entrant in this field. In order to evolve the context of navigation, this chapter begins with a brief overview of the history of navigation and elucidates current global investments in this field.

The basic purpose of a navigation system is the identification of location which requires a minimum of three satellites. A system is employed to calculate its position (basically in terms of distance) by measuring the distance between itself and the three satellites. The distance to each satellite is calculated by measuring the time lag between the transmission and reception of each microwave signal (which travels at a speed of light). Other information like location of the satellites is also necessary. Position identification is done by the technique of triangulation.

Essentially, navigational systems are based on two basic satellite-based positioning systems: the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) and the Regional Navigation Satellite Systems (RNSS). Global systems normally consist

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_11, © Springer India 2013

of a constellation of satellites (minimum of 24-26 satellites) and ground stations required to control them. The RNSSs also have similar infrastructure may be lesser in quantum. These networks can be termed broadly as GNSS augmentation systems.

The Chang’e-2 mission was launched on Oct 1, 2010, and has finished its all pre-set goals within its designed life span of 6 months by April 1, 2011. This mission is designed to get as close as 15 km above the Moon’s surface and take high – resolution imagery. The basic aim behind this mission was to test key technologies and collect data for future landings. Chang’e-2 has provided close-up pictures of Moon’s Sinus Iridum (Bay of Rainbows[246]), the proposed landing site for Chang’e-3 planned for 2013.[247]

This satellite has been set off from the Moon in remote outer space. Moon exploration involves travelling a distance of about 400,000 km away from the Earth. But, the outer space exploration involves a travel of 1.5 million km. After a travel of approximately 80 days from the region close to the Moon, this craft has arrived at a Lagrangian point (L2)[248] where it is expected to stay till the end of 2012 to conduct scientific observations and test deep space tracking and control capability for future possible explorations of Jupiter and the poles of the Sun. The satellite is also expected to monitor in 2012 the testing of two large antennas being built for deep space exploration.[249] On Feb 6, 2012, China has released a very detailed map of the Moon, marking the best view yet of the lunar surface as seen by a Chinese spacecraft. This map is based on the inputs received from the Chang’e-2 mission.

Prognostication of the future is normally done based on the knowledge of the present. This does not mean that the future will always evolve based on present events. Foretelling the future is an intricate activity even for creative thinkers, and in the past, many of them have gone wrong. Mr. Andrew W. Marshall is one who has few correct predictions to his credit. He is Pentagon’s futurist-in-chief who has been the Director of the Office of Net Assessment since the time of the Nixon Administration and had successfully predicted the end of the Cold War. Mr. Andrew Marshall has once articulated that ‘when it comes to predicting the future, it is better to err on the side of being unimaginative’.[322] [323]

The biggest obstacle for any predictive exercise is to avoid getting trapped into individual biases. Many a times it has been observed that the prevailing circumstances could render the judgment irrelevant. This mostly depends on the choice of variables for the analysis. At times, slight changes in input parameters make the predictive analysis look totally different. This particularly happens in case of statistical analysis because it relies heavily on arresting the connections between the explanatory variables and the predicted variables from past events. Predictions based on regression techniques also take into account relationships between dependent and independent variables. Such techniques play a major role towards finding solutions to scientific or economic problems. There are certain mathematical models and statistical techniques available even for finding solutions to complex problems in social science sphere. However, such techniques have limitations particularly in respect of quantifying certain variables mainly influenced by human behaviour. Hence, forecasting events related to geopolitics wars, political power shifts, community behaviour, failing states, poverty, social unrest, etc. are difficult, if not impossible, to predict entirely based on mathematical formulation. In order to make some sense of such a complex reality, the method of scenario building is perhaps one of the best research techniques available to us to enable the crafting of plausible futures in the realm of policy-making.

As a research technique, scenario building was pioneered by Herman Kahn in the 1950s while working at RAND, the renowned US-based research institution (think tank) on policy matters. This work was followed by Ted Newland, Pierre Wack and also by Jay Ogilvy, Paul Hawken and Peter Schwartz [1]. From a purely definitional point of view, Kahn and Weiner defined scenarios ‘as hypothetical sequences of events constructed for the purpose of focusing attention on causal processes and decision points’ [2]. Scenarios are not so much about predicting the future based on a short-term analysis. Rather, they are about ‘perceiving’ the future based on long-term analyses of an issue with a particular purpose/goal in mind. According to Peter Schwartz, ‘Scenarios provide a context for thinking clearly about the otherwise complex array of factors that affect any decision; give a common language to decision makers for talking about these factors, and encourage them to think about a series of “what if” stories; help lift the “blinkers” that limit creativity and resourcefulness; and lead to organizations thinking strategically and continuously learning about key decisions and priorities’.2

The method of scenario building is one of the most accepted techniques of making some sense of an ever dynamic and complex future. It helps to grasp a whole range of forces, factors and possibilities that are important while planning for the future. It is important to note that scenarios do have a high degree of uncertainty tagged to them. Therefore, studying the future based on the scenario­building method is at times viewed as an activity based on conjectures.

The notion of space power is a universal. However, there is no single definition of space power. Many analysts have attempted to typify, describe and predict the char­acter, connotation and functioning of space power. The term space power is found in writing as early as 1964, but there was no clear attempt to define it. Probably, one of the early attempts to define it was done as late as 1988. Lt Col David Lupton, in his book titled On Space Warfare, A Space Power Doctrine, published by Air University (U. S.) Press, presented the formal definition. Lupton has argued the requirement to derive the definition on the pattern of definitions of land, sea and air power offered by Mahan, Mitchell, Arnold and others. These definitions basically underscore three characteristics: (1) elements of national power, (2) purposes that are military and non-military, and (3) systems that are military and civilian. By contextualising these features, Lupton offered this definition: ‘Space power is the ability of a nation to exploit the space environment in pursuit of national goals and purposes and includes the entire astronautical capabilities of the nation.’ Alternatively, Space Power could also be viewed as an ability to exploit the civil, commercial and national security [8]

space systems (it includes space element, a terrestrial element and a link element) and associated infrastructure in support of national security strategy [16].

Another comprehensive description puts across space power as “the combination of technology, demographic, economic, industrial, military, national will, and other factors that contribute to the coercive and persuasive ability of a country to politically influence the actions of other states and other kinds of players or to otherwise achieve national goals through space activity” [17]. Since space power is viewed in context of national security strategy, it brings the dimension of security dilemma to the fore. The security dilemma spins around the paradox that the measures taken by a state to make it more secure will normally leads to making itself less secure. This is because the actions taken by the state leads to making their adversaries feel more insecure and hence attempts to measures to gain matching capabilities. The Asian region could be viewed as the place which presents the most widespread and exceptional security dilemma in the world. South Asia, Korean Peninsula, Taiwan tangle, Indo-China, Japan-China and Iran-Israel are all the cases of mutual misunderstandings where the concern for security dominates the geopolitical discourse presenting a picture of a region trapped in a security dilemma.

Alliteratively, a major criticism of the security dilemma concept emerges from the question of the validity of the offence-defence balance. Since weapons of offence and that of defence are the same, how can the distinction between the two be connected with a state’s intentions [18]? This is truer in case of space technologies which are inherently dual use in nature. However, particularity in the Asian context very less cooperative space activity is being witnessed. The real challenge in Asia would be whether the powers within the region can overcome the insecurity that drives the security dilemma.

The notion of space power becomes important particularly when space is being viewed as a medium to achieve strategic superiority. Philosophy of air power is found being extended to the idea of space power by some analysts. This has mainly directed the formulation of the concept of ‘high ground of space’. This notion was put into words way back in 1957 by General Thomas White. He had argued that

‘___ in the future it is likely that those who have the capability to control space

will likewise control the earth’s surface’ [19]. It has also been argued that ‘he who can secure control of space, deny an adversary access to space, and defeat weapons moving into or through space may cause an adversary to capitulate before forces act against each other on the earth’ [20].

The often quoted theory from the realm of International Relations, the theory of Balance of Power (BoP) could be used to appreciate the perspective of space security and space race. This is the most basic concept behind international politics and provides a structure for explaining some of the critical principles behind international relations [21]. BoP could be said to exit when there is parity amongst the competing forces. Successful space programmes of some of the Asian states contribute substantially to raise their stature as a dominant political power in Asia. States possessing such capabilities could use them for undertaking healthy interaction in this field and forging a stronger relationship. This could have a positive effect on the BoP.

For various Asian states, the key focus of investment in space arena has been for the purposes of using space applications for the betterment of the society. Asia is also a late starter in making investments into space field. The geopolitics of the region and the military capabilities of Asian states indicate that the development and influences of Asian space capabilities would have a more socioeconomic bias. The security challenges in the region could be viewed as more complex than rest of the world. But, at the same time, none of the Asian states are at the pinnacle of their space accomplishments; hence, it is unlikely that they would be preparing to achieve all out ‘space superiority’ from the warfare perspective. Hence, the notion of space power in Asian ‘wisdom’ appears to be more of a broad concept which includes projection of achievements in space technologies from a holistic sense inclusive of strategic dimension.

The United States Moon craft Apollo 11 reached the Moon in 1969. In the same year, the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) was started in Japan and work on rockets begun in earnest. But, the work towards entering into space arena could be said to have started much earlier during 1950s.

The credit for making Japan ready to entire the space age goes to Professor Hideo Itokawa from Tokyo University. He was instrumental in shaping Japanese governments views in this field. In 1960, he along with his colleague outlined that how a small satellite could be launched into the space. The scientific community under his leadership submitted a report in 1962 titled ‘Tentative plan for a satellite launcher’. The scientific community considered various issues like: Is satellite project feasible? Is there a need for cooperation with the USA? Is it worth making investments despite late start [4, pp. 4-11]? Subsequently, by 1965 a conscious decision was taken in 1965 that Japan should go ahead for a scientific satellite

programme. In the year 1970, Japan joined spacefaring nations by successfully launching ‘Ohsumi’, the first indigenous satellite developed by them.

During 1955 at the University of Tokyo, the Institute of Industrial Science began work with sounding rockets. In the same university in 1964, Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science (ISAS-the word Aeronautical was replaced by Astronautical in 1981), a lead agency overlooking Japan’s space science programmes was established. Subsequently, in 1969, the formation of National Space Development Agency (NASDA) helped Japan to develop programmes in the areas of remote sensing, communication and meteorology. The same agency was responsible for launching and tracking of satellites [5]. Japan had to face the agony of four successive launch failures (1966-1969), and its first successful satellite launch took place only in the fifth attempt. Although NASDA dwelled into various application programmes, one of their main tasks was the development of launch vehicles.

Apart from these agencies, other organisations like National Aerospace Labo­ratory of Japan (NAL-established in 1955) were involved in research on aircraft, rockets and other aeronautical transportation systems, as well as peripheral tech – nology.[111] Almost for three decades, many of the organisations responsible for the developments in space arena were reporting to different ministries in the Japanese government. Naturally, for overall growth of the programme, such diverse reporting channels and different budgeting allocations were hazardous. The period 1996-2003 witnessed a major setback to Japan’s space programme because of series of failures. Unfortunately, these failures never remained restricted to any one sector, and Japan faced losses both with its launchers as well as satellite systems. This made Japanese government to bring in significant reforms in its space architecture.

On the other hand, Japan could be said to be a country with unique distinction of having developed two parallel space programmes with two main organisations ISAS and NASDA having their own fleet of rockets, launch sites, mission control and tracking systems. The organisations had some amount of internal revelries too [4, p. 19]. The Japanese model demonstrates that the multiplicity of assets and formation of different organisations for similar purpose have limited utility and limited life span.

Since October 2003, a single body called Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is responsible for all aerospace activities in the Japan. JAXA is an indepen­dent administrative institution which functions as a principal entity responsible for research and development of Japan in aerospace areas. For this purpose NASDA, ISAS and NAL have been merged into one entity to establish JAXA. Now this organisation boasts a unique status in the country.3

JAXA is put under the administrative control of MEXT: Ministry of Edu­cation, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Inter-ministerial decision body for space, Space Activities Committee (SAC), is responsible for supervising the

space activities within MEXT and JAXA. The national strategy issues for all areas of science and technology including space is being overseen by the Council of Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) which is chaired by the prime minister [6]. Interestingly, Japan has also appointed its first ever minister of space development.[112] This appointment needs to be viewed at the backdrop of Japan scrapping its earlier policy of ban on the use of space programmes for defence.

The predecessors for satellite navigation can be identified from the non-satellite era. Ground-based LORAN (LOng-RAnge Navigation) and Omega systems were used for terrestrial long-wave radio transmitters instead of satellites. The Russian system on lines of the LORAN is the Chayka. The LORAN system became operational in 1958 and was extensively used by the maritime community. The LORAN-C system came to be used for aerial navigation quite widely and during trials in 1963.1 It had its limitations in respect of some aviation requirements particularly with regard to precision approaches.[194] [195] This system also served as a backup for the US global positioning system (GPS). This system was ceased to be used from October 1,2010.

OMEGA was another navigation system developed by the USA with six partner nations for the purposes of military aviation. It was approved for development in 1968 and became operational in 1971 and had 6 km accuracy when fixing a position. With the success of GPS, its usage declined, and it was permanently terminated by September 30, 1997.[196]

The first satellite-based navigation system was Transit a naval navigation satellite system, deployed by the US military in the 1960s and was operational till December 31, 1996. The Transit’s operation was based on the Doppler effect in which the satellites passed through well-known paths and broadcast their signals on a well – known frequency. The frequency shifted between the received frequency and the broadcast frequency because of the movement of the satellite with respect to the receiver. By monitoring this frequency shift over a period of time, it was possible to identify the location. A minimum of four operational satellites were required for this job. The constellation consisted of six satellites in a polar orbit.[197] The first satellite – based radio navigation system developed by the erstwhile USSR was the Tsiklon.[198] Thirty-one satellites were launched for this purpose during 1967 to 1978. Its basic aim was to provide positioning facilities to the ballistic missile submarines.

The Tsiklon series was followed by the fully operational ‘Tsyklon-B’ or ‘Parus’ system. This system was formally inducted into service in 1976, but the full 22 satellite constellation did not become operational until 1980. Parus satellites

continue to be launched till April 2010, and it is believed that it is now exclusively used for military communications. The Parus was followed by the Tsikada—a simplified system for civilian use. In fact, the Parus is sometimes referred to as the ‘Tsikada Military’ or ‘Tsikada-M’. The Tsikada system was put into service in 1979 and acquired its full complement of satellites in 1986. The Tsikada was largely used by the Soviet merchant marine.[199]