|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
136987
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Paris, Beauchesne, 2014.
|
| Description |
543p.pbk
|
| Series |
Studies in Modern Science and Technology from the International Academy on the History of Science
|
| Contents |
Vol. X
|
| Standard Number |
9782701020297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 058166 | 500.5094/KRI 058166 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137414
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article deals with the reasons why European countries should care about lunar settlement. First, the article focuses on the issue of geopolitics of the Moon and the importance of its natural resources—both energy and non-energy—and the relevance of lunar poles. The article then discusses European Union (EU) and European Space Agency (ESA) space activities. Next, there are basic strategic considerations EU/ESA countries should follow in utilizing outer space. From a terrestrial point of view, it is mainly the issue of energy independence and, from outer space, it is the possibility of denial of access to outer space. The article concludes with the acknowledgment of a growing interest in lunar colonization around the world and that Europeans should become more assertive in their lunar ambitions, including lunar development projects, for economic and strategic reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
157161
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Many impact assessments have been carried out to evaluate the economic and social effects of public investments in space. This paper focuses on ex post analyses of indirect industrial (intra-firm) effects, a sub-type of the impact assessments. A number of existing country-wide analyses report the ratio of the indirect industrial effects deriving from space-related contracts to the value of the space-related contracts placed with companies by governmental agencies (in Europe, mostly by the European Space Agency). This ratio is a widely accepted measure of the economic impact of the space contracts. The aim of this paper is to assess the usefulness of the ratio, a spin-off multiplier, for international benchmarking of the efficiency of space investments. The paper is the first attempt to provide an in-depth analysis of the methodological foundations of different country-wide studies on the spin-off multiplier performed in Europe. The country-wide studies have formulated different metrics and relied on different approaches to gathering quantitative data. The current paper discusses data quality issues that may result in a biased estimate of the spin-off multiplier. Data gathering techniques used in the studies tend to result in overestimated economic benefits. Even though the values of the spin-off multipliers are high in countries like Norway or Denmark, the confidence interval of the estimates is wide. The paper discusses time considerations to be taken into account for a standardized ratio as there is a time lag of several years until research and development becomes operative. Despite several methodological limitations, measuring the indirect industrial effects is a valuable tool for governments, especially for smaller ESA member states, as such studies can be implemented at low cost and provide information on spillovers from space programmes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
126957
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since ESA's establishment the context in which it operates has evolved greatly, from one of development of technologies and general competence to one of responding to the needs of an increasingly wide range of users, many of whose requirements straddle several applications categories. The IAP programme is ESA's response to this challenge, aimed at fostering the growth of a downstream industry, creating a market for the space industry and serving economic growth overall. The programme's structure and the platforms themselves are described and the programme's achievements and prospects presented. Its success testifies to ESA's continuing ability to adapt to changing environments and operate effectively in new sectors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
181637
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
European space policy is currently at a watershed. In 2021, there will be two institutions responsible for European space activities: The EU Space Agency (EU SPA) and the civilian European Space Agency (ESA) founded in 1975. This article investigates how new objectives and governance scheme(s) of European space activities reflect the increasing securitisation of space in Europe. Linking work in critical security studies to the concept of boundary work from science and technology studies (STS) I outline three phases of boundary work – expansion, expulsion and protection of autonomy – that all show how the dividing lines between peaceful and militarised space activities have become increasingly blurred. The conclusion argues that we currently witness a shift in the visions of European integration in space, with ESA remaining outside the EU framework and open to non-EU members while the EU SPA is accessible to EU members only and explicitly dedicated to the use of space for security. As the strategic potential of outer space is likely to grow, the paper offers a critical empirical investigation of the ongoing transformation in European space policy that has significant consequences for how we envision a “united Europe in space”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
110677
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
137412
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Space is a strategic sector, integral to virtually every facet of life in Europe, thus protection of this vital European space infrastructure is critical. No European organization, however, is able to provide a sufficiently independent assessment of the space environment. Efforts, therefore, are being pursued to develop an integrated Space Situational Awareness (SSA) capability in Europe. This article reviews the undertaking of SSA in Europe and the roles played by the European Union (EU) and the European Space Agency (ESA). It examines some of the obstacles ESA has faced in implementing its SSA efforts, challenges which range from budgetary limitations to the refusal of member states to share their military facilities, with the result being that ESA focuses on space weather and near-Earth objects rather than the more controversial and national security aspects of SSA, space surveillance and tracking (SST). The article also assesses the European Commission’s proposal for establishing a SST support program and coordinating European states’ SST assets while the national European governments—namely, their respective military authorities—retain control of SST sensor and processing functions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
052871
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Apr-Jun 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
122308
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Starting with the assumption that the European Union has increasingly tended to present its major space achievements as a substantial contribution to a larger and more ambitious project of construction and legitimization of a political actor (common foreign and security policy/European security and defense policy), this study deals with the EU's international actorness regarding global space governance. Different criteria (authority, autonomy, and coherence) have been selected in order to measure the level of international actorness in a given sector. This original grid of analysis has been systematically tested on the EU in order to conclude if the EU is an actor in the space field or if it is simply present in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|