JBIS, Vol. 64, pp.xxx-xxx, 2011 Project Icarus: Stakeholder Scenarios for an Interstellar Exploration Program PROJECT ICARUS: STAKEHOLDER SCENARIOS FOR AN INTERSTELLAR EXPLORATION PROGRAM ANDREAS M. HEIN1, ANDREAS C. TZIOLAS2 AND RICHARD OSBORNE3 Icarus Interstellar, 2809 Spenard Rd, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, USA. Email: ahein@icarusinterstellar.org1, atziolas@icarusinterstellar.org2, rosborne@icarusinterstellar.org3 The Project Icarus Study Group’s objective is to design a mainly fusion-propelled interstellar probe, based on the results of the Daedalus study, which was conducted by the British Interplanetary Society during the 1970’s. As the Daedalus study already indicated, interstellar probes will be the result of a large scale, decade-long development program. To sustain a program over such long periods, the commitment of key stakeholders is vital. Although previous publications identified political and societal preconditions to an interstellar exploration program, there is a lack of more specific scientific and political stakeholder scenarios. This paper develops stakeholder scenarios which allow for a more detailed sustainability assessment of future programs. For this purpose, key stakeholder groups and their needs are identified and scientific and political scenarios derived. Political scenarios are based on patterns of past space programs but unprecedented scenarios are considered as well. Although it is very difficult to sustain an interstellar exploration program, there are scenarios in which this seems to be possible, e.g. the discovery of life within the solar system and on an exoplanet, a global technology development program, and dual-use of technologies for defence and security purposes. This is a submission of the Project Icarus Study Group. Keywords: Interstellar, Project Icarus, stakeholder, pattern, systems engineering, UML 1. INTRODUCTION The Project Icarus Study Group reassesses the original Daedalus concept of a fusion-propelled interstellar probe [1]. The Daedalus study was conducted by members of the British Interplanetary Society between 1973 and 1978 and is until now the most detailed study of an interstellar spacecraft [2]. An interstellar probe is the result of a large scale and longterm development program and requires a high level of continuous investment over several decades. In order to be sustainable, key stakeholders have to support the program. In general, the level of support for a program depends on the specific historical context. Several publications address the required historical context for an interstellar exploration program. Crawford [3] specifies political preconditions that might ultimately lead to interstellar travel, specifically the need for a federal world government. Bond and Martin [4] conclude in that an interplanetary civilization is required before an interstellar probe is developed. Parkinson [5-7] explores economic, societal and philosophical contexts of interstellar flight. However, beyond the identified preconditions, more specific scenarios in which an interstellar exploration program is sustained have not been defined yet. This would solidify the evaluation of mission architectures in order to develop a sustainable exploration program. This paper addresses the question of long-term sustainability of an interstellar exploration program by developing stakeholder scenarios. Plausible scientific and political scenarios are explored. This exercise is expected to allow more detailed assessments of possible mission architectures in order to increase Paper presented at the 61st International Astronautical Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, 27 September - 1 October 2010. Paper No. IAC-10-D4.2.5. program sustainability. The analysis is restricted to unmanned interstellar exploration. Important stakeholder groups and their needs are identified and then scenarios developed in which these stakeholders might support an interstellar program. The illustrations use a notation resembling the Unified Modeling Language (UML). 2. DEFINITIONS “Stakeholders in a process are actors (persons or organizations) with a vested interest in the policy being promoted.” “Stakeholder analysis is a process of systematically gathering and analyzing qualitative information to determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing and/or implementing a policy or program.” [8] Therefore, stakeholder analysis is concerned with the identification and prioritization of stakeholder interests. The definition of scenario used in this paper is “an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events” taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Policy is defined as “a plan or course of action made by a government or organization which determines its decisions, actions etc.” [9, p.34] Politics on the other hand is “the properly constituted and legal mechanism by which the general public expresses its judgments on the value to it of the goods and services that it needs.” [10, p.197] The general public is the ultimate “customer” but is represented by politicians [9, p.35]. Before political actors agree on a policy, politics is the process which defines the policy [9, p.34]. A further notion used in this paper is program. A program “defines a strategic direction that the Agency has identified as needed to implement Agency goals and objectives.” A project is initiated and directed by a program and is intended to deliver new or revised products. [11, Chapter 2] A program is usually related to multiple projects. According 1 Andreas M. Hein, Andreas C. Tziolas and Richard Osborne to Rebentisch [12] four factors contribute to sustainability: value delivery to stakeholders, policy robustness, risk management, and affordability. This paper primarily addresses sustainability issues related to value delivery. 3. SPACE POLITICS AND POLICY The rationale for a large-scale space program has to be persuasive for a broad spectrum of stakeholders and has to meet their needs [13]. These programs are conducted in a political context, in which it is vital to gain governmental support and funding. It is assumed in this paper that the importance of the government for space programs will not significantly change in the future, although the influence of private initiatives might grow. A possible exception is described in Section 5.4. As governmental funding is limited, it is usually distributed across a wide range of political actors. The way how the funding is distributed amongst them depends on the current political agenda. A comprehensive framework which describes the relationships between agenda-setting, space politics and policy can be found in [13]. Regarding space policy in particular, there are two types of policy that are important: “primary policy” and “ancillary policy” [14, p.135]. “Primary policy” aims at achieving the top priority goals of a government. In the 60s space policy was primary policy in the U.S. The Apollo program’s engineering objective of landing and returning a man from the Moon was consistent with the political objective of the program to provide the Soviet Union with a decisive blow in space. This consistency of engineering and political objectives proved to be an exception. Later major space programs were conducted in an “ancillary policy” environment. An “ancillary policy” has a rather low priority and is concerned with continuing an already existing activity. In an ancillary policy environment, negotiations and coalition-building take place in order to reach the “critical mass” of support to get a program approved and sustained. The history of the space station “Freedom”, the later International Space Station (ISS) is one example for a large-scale program, which was approved and sustained in an ancillary policy environment. The difficult process leading to approval is described in detail in [15]. One caveat of an ancillary policy environment is that the engineering and the political objectives are not congruent. The space station’s main engineering objective was to provide an environment to conduct science in space. Depending on the historical context, the political objectives were manifold and ranged from creating jobs to supporting U.S. allies. These objectives are not directly related to the technical capabilities the space station provides [14, p.144]. “With ancillary policy, politics rather than the substance of an issue or problem drives decisions.”[14, p.136] 4. DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER SCENARIOS The following analysis considers stakeholders and their needs on a rather high level of abstraction. The scientific community with its particular science objectives is treated first, as it is considered the primary beneficiary of an exploration program. 4.1 Science Stakeholders The main direct output of an interstellar exploration mission will be knowledge about the universe. How much this knowledge is valued depends on the subgroup within the scientific community. How much support for obtaining this knowledge exists depends on the particular science scenario. Figure 1 shows how science stakeholder scenarios are derived in the following. 2 Fig. 1 Process of developing science stakeholder scenarios. Webb [16] and Crawford [17] break down the scientific case for interstellar spaceflight into four main areas: interstellar medium studies, stellar astrophysics, planetary science, and astrobiology. Four distinct science stakeholder groups are identified: • Scientists interested in the interstellar medium • The stellar astrophysics community • The planetary science community • The astrobiology community 4.2 Science Stakeholder Use Cases Figure 2 shows the science stakeholders and their associated use cases. Each use case (ellipse) an interstellar program provides is associated with a stakeholder group (stick-figure). First, the stakeholder interests are prioritized according to their relative benefit they would receive from an interstellar exploration program. This is done by asking the question: Which science objectives can be solely addressed by an interstellar mission and are vital for a certain group? If a certain objective can only be addressed by an interstellar exploration program and its fulfillment is vital, it is assumed that the program will be supported by the associated group. This leads to the following results: The in-situ measurement objectives of the planetary science and astrobiology community can be fulfilled solely by an interstellar probe. This includes measurements on exosolar planetary surfaces and detection of life. They cannot be fulfilled by any other means than an interstellar probe which reaches the target star system. The remaining two communities may also benefit from an interstellar probe by obtaining closerange, long-duration measurements of the target star and insitu measurements of the interstellar medium. However, at least Project Icarus: Stakeholder Scenarios for an Interstellar Exploration Program TABLE 1: Four Science Scenarios for Future Discoveries in Astrobiology. Best case Exoplanet with biosignatures detected Life within solar system detected Intermediate cases Exoplanet with biosignatures detected No life within solar system detected No exoplanet with biosignatures detected Life within solar system detected Worst case No exoplanet with biosignatures detected No life within solar system detected Fig. 2 Icarus science stakeholders use case diagram. the in-situ measurements of the interstellar medium can be partly accomplished by precursor missions and therefore will probably not be the main scientific driver for the probe. These results of the analysis are in accordance with previously published results by Crawford [17]. If this prioritization is accepted, there are three important conclusions for the probe mission architecture: • First, the probe has to decelerate at the target star system to get sufficient support from the two primarily addressed scientific communities. • Second, biologically interesting exoplanets need to be detected in the neighborhood of the Sun and these planets can be reached by an interstellar probe within a reasonable timeframe. • Third, any interstellar mission with planetary or astrobiology objectives has to be preceded by a thorough investigation of our own solar system. These investigations are needed to get sufficient experience with life detection and advanced robotic exploration technologies. Otherwise, the risk for the mission would be too big. These conclusions are compared to scenarios for the exploration of the universe in the coming century. 4.3 Science Scenarios Chyba [18, Chapter 17] investigates the policy case for research on astrobiology in our own solar system and the detection of exoplanets. From this policy case, different scenarios are deduced which create a supportive environment for an interstellar exploration program. Table 1 gives an overview of these scenarios. The environment with the highest support would be created by the detection of life within our solar system and the discovery of a planet with bio-signatures within reachable distance. The worst case scenario would be the failure to detect life elsewhere in the solar system and the failure to detect biologically interesting exoplanets. A problem associated with the detection of life is to decide whether extraterrestrial life existed, still exists or never existed. It is probably easier to claim the existence of life than to claim that no life existed or exists. The former “only” requires the credible detection of a life-form the latter requires a thorough investigation of the planet and has to exclude alternative forms of life. According to [18], to make a credible statement about the absence of life in the solar system requires sending multiple missions to Mars, Europa or Titan. Even assuming significantly increased budgets for realizing these missions, it will probably not be possible to confirm the absence of life by the end of the 21st century. On the other hand, the detection of life may be possible as soon as investigations commence on the celestial bodies in question. Therefore, the best case scenario may become reality within the 21st century, whereas the worst case scenario is likely to occur only at the end of the 21st century. The scientific community is certainly responsible for the sustainability of e.g. the NASA robotic exploration program [19]. However, looking at historical large-scale, high-visibility space programs like Apollo and the International Space Station, these programs were dominated by foreign policy or national security considerations. In these cases scientific objectives played a minor role in the decision making process and had low influence on the sustainability of these programs. Hence, the political stakeholders relevant for an interstellar exploration program are considered next. 5. DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL STAKEHOLDER SCENARIOS 5.1 Political Stakeholders The notion of “political stakeholders” subsumes the major actors in the decision making process for a space exploration program. Fig. 3 gives an overview of these groups in a general fashion [20]. Each of these stakeholders can be further decomposed into stakeholder sub-groups. However, this level of abstraction should be sufficient for the purpose of this paper. An overview of the process to develop political stakeholder scenarios is shown in Fig. 4. 3 Andreas M. Hein, Andreas C. Tziolas and Richard Osborne Fig. 3 Overview of major stakeholders, relevant for past space programs. of “pattern” is “something designed or used as a model for making things <a dressmaker’s pattern>”. More specifically, the notion of “pattern” used in this paper is related to architecture and software engineering patterns: “Each pattern is a threepart rule, which expresses a relation between a certain context, a problem, and a solution.” [21] Patterns are like heuristics and give a guideline for acting in a complex environment. This concept of a pattern was first developed by Christopher Alexander and was then adopted by software engineers [22-24]. Within software engineering, patterns are today an indispensable tool for managing complexity by capturing proven design knowledge. There were attempts to introduce them into education, mechanical engineering, product development and control engineering as well [25-28]. To use patterns to describe recurring stakeholder constellations has not been tried yet. This group of patterns is used here as a tool to abstract past stakeholder constellations and then to derive plausible future stakeholder scenarios. The patterns were developed by using the approach from [29]. The patterns considered here consist of six elements: • pattern name • context • problem • solution • consequences • examples Fig. 4 Process of developing political stakeholder scenarios. Whereas the scientific community is at least partly guided by the need to increase the knowledge of humanity, political stakeholders are ruled by the logic of politics. If political stakeholders are elected officials, they strive to get benefits, revenues for their organization, group or society they represent. Their decisions are the results of voting, discussions, negotiations, exchanges of favors and relationships between representatives [9, p.35] [10, Chapter 13]. The constellation of specific stakeholders and their needs is historically contingent and depends on innumerable factors. One approach to deal with this complexity is to identify patterns in past space programs. 5.2 Political Stakeholder Patterns According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, one definition 4 The name signifies the pattern and is important for a quick identification. A pattern is a “chunk” of knowledge and the name labels this chunk. Often “catchy” names are chosen which are easy to memorize. The name is followed by a concept map that shows the basic structure of the relationships between different political actors and the exploration program. The context describes in what situation a specific problem occurs. The context defines what solutions are feasible to solve a problem. The problem is stated in a general way that is independent of its context. The same problem might have entirely different solutions in different contexts. The solution solves the problem in a particular context. A solution is often the result of several tradeoffs. The consequences describe what has to be expected when the solution is implemented. Examples are used in this paper to illustrate where the pattern was identified in a past program. To keep things simple, additional pattern elements were not used, although the patterns presented here are open to extensions. Name: Confrontation Figure 5 depicts the basic structure of the confrontation pattern. Context There is a confrontation between factions with different Project Icarus: Stakeholder Scenarios for an Interstellar Exploration Program Union and played a minor role. [31, p.351] The pervading influence of the military, defense and security considerations sustained the space program in the 60s [30, pp.286-287]. Name: Job-Machine Figure 6 depicts the basic structure of the job-machine pattern. Fig. 5 Concept map of the confrontation pattern. governmental systems. A high-technology, high-visibility domain. This domain signifies technological superiority, which is seen as one of the most important indicators for a good governmental system. Problem How to provide the rival governmental system with a decisive blow in a particular domain? Solution Initiate and accomplish a program in the particular technological domain. If successfully accomplished, it provides a decisive blow to the prestige/status of the rival. Consequences • Politically relevant results have to be delivered immediately • The announcement of the program may be sufficient to satisfy a domestic “call for action”. This may lead to a diminished interest in accomplishing the program. Examples Apollo Program The main actors for the Apollo project were the Kennedy administration, Congress, NASA, the Department of Defense and the general public. A chain of events enforced the Kennedy administration to initiate the Apollo program: The “Bay of the Pigs” disaster, the “Missile Gap” rhetoric and the Gagarin flight. There is also a broad consensus in the general public and Congress that an adequate reaction to the Soviet “Firsts” in space was necessary. The underlying premise was that the demonstration of technological superiority in space means general superiority of a governmental system. Many third world countries at that time were struggling for which governmental system to choose. Therefore, the Apollo program can be seen as a strategic foreign policy tool to influence these countries in favor for the US system [30]. Vostok Program The main actors with respect to the Vostok program were the OKB-1 headed by the chief designer Sergey Korolev, the military, the Communist party and government. In contrast to Apollo, the main drivers of the spectacular “Firsts” of the Soviet Union were the chief designers. Their plans were only “tolerated” by party leaders. Nevertheless, the successes were exploited in order to show the superiority of the communist system. However, the Soviet space program was never part of the primary policy agenda of the Soviet Fig. 6 Concept map of the job-machine pattern. Context The aerospace market shows a cyclic behavior with strong fluctuations, which depend on factors like the defense budgets and the acquisition strategy of major airlines. However, due to the high complexity of its products the aerospace industry depends on highly qualified employees, well-established organizational structures, and sophisticated manufacturing technologies. Strong market fluctuations hamper an efficient use of these assets, which might even threaten the survival of companies. As the aerospace industry is a “dual-use” industry, its assets are also relevant for security and defense considerations [32, p.4]. Problem How to damp the influence of market fluctuations? Solution Sustain the capabilities of the aerospace industry by assigning government contracts. Consequences • Funding is often insufficient and may lead to technically unsatisfactory solutions, thus increasing technical risk. • If occurring with the “technology push” pattern, cooperation and work-share leads to a reduction of jobs created in the domestic industry, leading to a diminished effect. Examples The Space Shuttle decision The Nixon administration’s primary aim of approving the Space Shuttle program was to sustain the aerospace industry which was in a recession due to the end of the Apollo program and decreasing military spending. In this downturn, the Shuttle program worked as a job-machine for domestic industry [33, pp.291-293]. Apollo program Robert McNamara from the Department of Defense pointed out that the political support from the aerospace industry could be sustained by a new large-scale project. The Apollo program worked against an “oversupply of manpower in the aerospace industry” [14, p.60]. Space station Freedom The space station survived several cancellation attempts as 5 Andreas M. Hein, Andreas C. Tziolas and Richard Osborne it worked as a “good domestic spending project” which created “an estimated 75,000 jobs in 39 states” [14, pp.158159], [13, pp.68-69]. Name: Technology push Figure 7 depicts the basic structure of the technology push pattern. station was no longer valid. Therefore NASA advocated the space station to the Clinton administration in a new way. The former rival Russia would be incorporated into the program, in order to prevent the proliferation of aerospace know-how. The space station would also be a part of a larger strategy to stabilize the new democracy in Russia and to strengthen its economy. A further objective was to reduce the cost for the station significantly by using Russian knowhow and hardware. Due to the fixed budget and the clear foreign policy purpose of the station, Congress supported the proposal [13, pp.477-478], [14, pp.190-191], [34, p.2], [35, p.2], [18, pp.121-122]. Name: Military support Figure 8 depicts the basic structure of the military support pattern. Fig. 7 Concept map of the technology push pattern. Context Domestic or foreign policy considerations necessitate the enhancement of technological and economic capabilities in the domestic and international aerospace sector. This may include the enhancement of military technology, the stabilization of foreign countries, and the prevention of knowledge proliferation by unemployed staff. Problem How to enhance the technological and economic capabilities? Solution Initiate a high- technology, high-visibility aerospace project. If foreign policy issues are relevant, encourage international cooperation. Due to the dual nature of aerospace technology, the developed capabilities can be transferred from civil to military use. The creation of jobs in cooperating countries should curtail knowledge proliferation. Consequences • International cooperation may reduce the cost of the program for individual countries • International cooperation may open the door to existing assets and heritage, e.g. know-how and hardware • Political instability of cooperating countries might threaten the project • The complexity of managing the project increases with international cooperation • Tensions and disagreement among international partners may threaten the project • Cooperation and work-share leads to a reduction of jobs created in the domestic industry, diminishing the effect of the “Job-machine” Examples The Space Station Freedom decision When the space station was approved in 1984, the Reagan administration looked at it in a broader strategic context to beat the Soviet Union. The space station had to be an international cooperation program in order to enhance the technological capabilities of the U.S. allies and to produce domestic technology spin-offs for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). [13, pp.15-16]. The ISS decision After the Cold War ended, the original purpose of the space 6 Fig.8 Concept map of the military support pattern. Context A development program for a civil system or technology has insufficient stakeholder support for approval. Problem How to get sufficient stakeholder support? Solution Check whether a defense and security application of the system or technology is feasible. If feasible, win the support of defense and security-related stakeholders. Consequences • The defense and security application might dominate the requirements for system or technology development. In this case, the civil application is playing a minor role. • The defense and security stakeholder might play a dominant role and their withdrawal is likely to have severe consequences Examples The Space Station Freedom decision One of the space station’s objectives was to produce domestic technology spin-offs for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) [13, pp.15-16]. The Space Shuttle decision In order to be economically feasible, the Space Shuttle had to have a very high launch rate. This launch rate could only be achieved if all U.S. payloads would be launched with it. It was therefore crucial to win the support of the Department of Defense (DoD). For the DoD, this was not a bad deal. They would get a launch vehicle “for free”. However, the DoD’s requirements severely altered the Shuttle design and the result was a much larger vehicle which was not fully reusable [36, pp.44-46]. Project Icarus: Stakeholder Scenarios for an Interstellar Exploration Program Apollo program One failed attempt to use a defense/security label in order to sustain a program was Apollo. When criticism grew in 1963, Kennedy intended to protect the program from criticism by constructing a national security and military rationale around it. However, this rationale did not seem to be convincing to the DoD which could not see any direct military value in Apollo [37]. 5.3 Political Use Cases An interstellar exploration program should address the use cases depicted in Fig. 9. These use cases can be used to derive requirements for particular missions. Mission architectures can then be evaluated against the derived requirements and be ranked. However, the importance of a use case depends on the specific scenario. 5.4 Political Scenarios The introduced patterns can be used to construct plausible future scenarios in which an interstellar exploration program might get sufficient support. This is not obvious, due to the enormous difficulties to sustain such a program. Many characteristics of an interstellar exploration program are unfavorable from a political perspective: • Extremely high cost (Trillions of Dollars) • Long lead time before launch and value return (decades) • Long trip duration (decades) High cost and long lead times until value return are exactly the opposite of politically favorable characteristics. For an ancillary policy environment, which is most likely, the following measures may increase the political feasibility of the program: • Stretch out the cost over longer periods as was done for the space station [14, p.189] • Develop and sustain a strong political rationale to sustain approval in changing political environments With these difficulties in mind, plausible scenarios are constructed that provide a convincing context in which such a program might get approved and sustained. 5.4.1 Confrontation Pattern In a confrontation scenario, a high-visibility program is initiated and accomplished in order to provide a decisive blow to a rival within a relevant domain. For an interstellar exploration program, the question is what element would actually provide the decisive blow. Three possibilities are identified: • Program announcement • Launch of a probe Fig. 9 Possible political use cases for an interstellar probe mission. objectives may play only a minor role and there is the possibility that the expensive deceleration and landing on an exoplanet could be considered as politically irrelevant and therefore discarded later on. The arrival and potential landing of a spacecraft on an exoplanet may take at least many decades or up to a century. Regarding politically relevant time-frames, this is probably too long. But another problem might be more significant in a confrontation context. If the landing is the definitive sign of technological superiority, then a political “waiting paradox” comes into play. What if the rival launches a smaller and faster probe a few decades later but arrives faster at the target system? Due to the minor importance of the scientific objectives in this pattern, an impact or landing of a scientifically irrelevant probe might already be claimed as a victory over the scientifically more sophisticated probe launched earlier. Regarding the Apollo program, Kennedy faced a similar problem when choosing an adequate answer to the Soviet “Firsts”. A space station was discarded immediately because of the vague definition of what a “space station” actually is. If the U.S. would have initiated a space station development program, the Soviets might have answered this by launching a much smaller spacecraft claiming that this would be their “space station” [38]. One potential “game-changer” is an increase in the significance of a landing on an exoplanet due to the redefinition of the U.N. “Outer Space Treaty” which would permit the possession of territories in outer space [39]. Although economically worthless, this might be a powerful incentive to “claim” an exoplanet to be part of the own territory by landing a spacecraft on it. However, this still does not solve the political waiting paradox. • Accomplished arrival/landing in target star system Politically, a “return of investment” in a rather short timeframe is required. The announcement to develop an interstellar probe might already provide the desired political effect, which can be sufficient to get approval for a program. The rival might be already discouraged by this bold announcement and be reluctant to compete. The launch of the probe may have a similar effect. After the political result has been achieved, the scientific An argument against the applicability of the confrontation pattern is the potential absence of a sufficiently serious confrontation between political factions in the future. The existence of a federal world government as described by Crawford [3] would be a reason for the absence of confrontations. However, it is possible to imagine that even under the umbrella of a world government tensions might develop due to e.g. economic for environmental reasons. This might even lead to a split-up of 7 Andreas M. Hein, Andreas C. Tziolas and Richard Osborne the world government into two or more factions. The U.S. civil war is an example of how a federal state broke up under specific historical circumstances. 5.4.2 Job-Machine Pattern This pattern may easily apply to an interstellar exploration program, which would create or sustain a significant amount of jobs in the aerospace industry for decades. Crawford [3] already points to this effect for an interstellar exploration program. As the consequences of this pattern indicate, this is probably not enough to sustain a program with more than minimal funding. Nevertheless, in an ancillary policy environment, the job argument significantly increases the sustainability of a program, as it is difficult to justify cancellation if a large number of jobs are at stake. lar exploration, corporations would then be the primary actors in constituting such a program. Nevertheless, with some changes, the patterns still remain applicable to this scenario. Confrontations between corporations on a global level are today already common. Technology development and defense and security considerations can also be imagined to play a role within a corporation with the scale and complexity of a government. 6. STAKEHOLDER SCENARIO NARRATIVES From the science and politics stakeholder scenarios narratives, are derived in order to illustrate the results. This “future history” narrative can be found in e.g. [42]. They are “optimistic” scenarios in the sense that they present a stakeholder constellation in which an interstellar mission might become feasible. 5.4.3 Technology Push Pattern 6.1 Looking at an interstellar exploration program with the development of fusion propulsion, one interesting and politically relevant technology would be inertial confinement fusion (ICF). By initiating an ICF propulsion program, this technology might be developed in many countries. The underlying aim is to spread ICF technology and know-how for energy generation among these countries. Furthermore, in a post-Cold War scenario with a former super-power needing economic support, the program might be used as a foreign policy tool. “During the 21st century, a Europa surface lander mission has finally managed to penetrate the ice and to reach the ocean beneath. The discovery of extraterrestrial life-forms around hot springs had a profound impact on science and humanity. This amazing discovery was only surpassed by the identification of biosignatures in an exoplanet atmosphere around Alpha Centauri, discovered by a direct imaging space telescope. These two events spurred the funding of astrobiology and scientific space exploration missions mainly due to the huge public interest in this topic. The public is keen on getting knowledge about the life-forms on this exoplanet.” 5.4.4 Military Support Pattern A defense and security rationale for the development of an interstellar probe might be the dual-use of fusion propulsion and other technologies for asteroid mining and planetary defense. Asteroid mining does not fit into a defense and security context from today’s point of view. However, with strategically important resources dwindling in the future like rare earth elements, the ability to mine asteroids might get a defense and security relevance. This rationale may become the new direction in military research, which countries around the world must join in to be able to stay competitive. The result is a disconnected, yet international effort to fulfill the requirements for interstellar travel with the promise of numerous military applications from spin-offs. The end products are the necessary technologies for deep space probes, by leveraging the global military competition. One precondition for this scenario is the sufficient dual-use relevance of the technologies to be developed for an interstellar probe. 5.4.5 Beyond Historical Patterns A similar case of an international research and development effort may follow from the religious/ideological sponsorship of an interstellar program. Research into these new technological directions will require unwavering persistence which may span the timelines of several generations. Particularly religious organizations have a long lasting history, and when employed along with a well defined political perspective, they may provide ideal conditions for prolonged research. An historical analogy is the theological notion of “dominium terrae” in Christianity, which authorizes mankind to gain control over nature [40]. A similar “cosmic” incentive can be imagined. Another possible scenario is the diminishing of governmental and state authority and the replacement of their role by globally acting corporations [41-43]. In the context of interstel8 Sample Science Stakeholder Scenario Instead of Europa, a discovery of past life forms on Mars as a result of a sample return mission would be another possibility. It is also an idea to replace “Alpha Centauri” by any star system name within reasonable distance to the Sun, in which astrobiologically interesting planets might have formed. 6.2 Sample Political Stakeholder Scenario “In the first half of the 22nd century, the fossil fuel reserves diminished and the growing environmental consciousness left an energy gap, which had to be filled by alternative energy generation methods. By multilateral agreements, a large-scale international fusion energy development program is initiated in order to introduce fusion technology on a large scale. Within this strategic context, a fusion propelled interstellar probe is seen as a means to increase the know-how in fusion technology and as a symbol for a new technological era, increasing the prestige of the participating nations by showing their technological superiority. Fusion propulsion is also seen as an important asset for future space applications like planetary defense and asteroid mining. As natural resources dwindle, formerly economically unattractive approaches for mining precious materials are explored.” This scenario is based on the technology pattern. It also makes use of the confrontation pattern in the sense that the nations participating in the project want to manifest their technological lead against their economic rivals. Differing governmental systems do not necessarily play a role in this scenario. 7. CONCLUSION In this paper the issue of long-term sustainability of an interstellar exploration program was addressed by developing stakeholder scenarios. First, a stakeholder analysis was Project Icarus: Stakeholder Scenarios for an Interstellar Exploration Program conducted, focusing on science stakeholders and key political stakeholders. As most relevant science stakeholder groups, planetary geology and astrobiology were identified. Additionally, different science scenarios were described, which are driven by the discovery of life within the solar system and on an exoplanet within reach. For the political stakeholders, patterns from historical contexts were used to provide a method to create scenarios in a generic way. Besides patterns from history, possible future stakeholders were also considered: religious groups with an incentive to support space exploration and global corporations that partly replace current forms of the state. The results of the political stakeholder scenarios provide the basis to refine general contexts for an interstellar exploration program like the need for a federal world government or an interplanetary civiliza- tion. This enables to derive more detailed requirements for potential mission architectures. To conclude, plausible scenarios that are able to sustain an interstellar exploration program seem to exist. It then depends on the structure of the program and the particular interstellar mission to deliver sufficient value to the stakeholders over the entire program duration. Future research in Project Icarus will focus on the assessment of specific mission architectures with respect to these scenarios, in order to develop a sustainable program. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Ian Crawford and the reviewers for helpful suggestions and comments on earlier versions of this paper. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. K.F. Long, M. Fogg, R. Obousy, A. Tziolas, A. Mann, R. Osborne and A. Presby, “Project Icarus: Son of “Daedalus – Flying Closer to Another Star”, JBIS, 62 pp.403-416, 2009. A.R. Martin (ed), “Project Daedalus - the final report on the BIS starship study”, JBIS supplement, 1978. I.A. Crawford, “The starship as an exercise in world government”, Spaceflight, 35, 188-190; 250-252, 1993. A. Bond and A.R. Martin “Project Daedalus”, in “Project Daedalus - the final report on the BIS starship study”, A.R. Martin (ed.), JBIS supplement, S.5-S.7, 1978. B. Parkinson, “The Starship as an Exercise in Economics”, JBIS, 27, p.692, 1975. B. Parkinson, “The Starship as Third Generation Technology”, JBIS, 27, p.295, 1974. B. Parkinson, “The Starship as a Philosophical Vehicle”, JBIS, 28, pp.745-750, 1975. K. Schmeer, “Stakeholder Analysis Guidelines”, Section 2 of Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Reform, Partners for Health Reform, Washington, D.C., 2000. A.L. Weigel, “Bringing Policy into Space Systems Conceptual Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods”, Phd Thesis, MIT, Boston, 2002 E. Rechtin and M. Maier, “The Art of Systems Architecting”, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1997 NASA Office of the Chief Engineer, “NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements”, NID 7120-97, NASA Interim Directive (NID) for NPR 7120.5D, 2007 E.S. Rebentisch, “Using Stakeholder Value Analysis to Build Exploration Sustainability”, Proceedings of 1st Space Exploration Conference: Continuing the Voyage of Discovery, Orlando, 2005 E. Sadeh, “Space politics and Policy: An Evolutionary Perspective”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002 R.D. Launius and H.E. McCurdy, “Spaceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership”, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1997 H.E. McCurdy, “The Space Station Decision: Incremental Politics and Technological Choice”, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1990 G.M. Webb, “Project Daedalus: Some Principles for the Design of a Payload for a Stellar Flyby Mission”, in “Project Daedalus- the final report on the BIS starship study”, A.R. Martin (ed), JBIS supplement, pp. 149-161, 1978. I.A. Crawford, “The Astronomical, Astrobiological and Planetary Science Case for Interstellar Spaceflight”, JBIS, 62, pp.415-421, 2009 W.H. Lambright (ed), “Space Policy in the 21st century”, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2003 M. Craig, “Achieving Profound Public Engagement - The Ultimate Source of Exploration Vision Sustainability”; AIAA paper No. 2005-2568, 1st Space Exploration Conference, January 2005. B.G. Cameron, E.F. Crawley, G. Loureiro., E.S. Rebentisch, “Value Flow Mapping: Using Networks to Inform Stakeholder Analysis”, Acta Astronautica, 62, pp.324-333, 2008. C. Alexander, “The Timeless Way of Building”, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979. 22. K. Beck, W. Cunningham, “Using Pattern Languages for ObjectOriented Programs”, Proceedings of OOPSLA ‘87, Orlando, 1987. 23. E. Gamma, R. Helm, R.E. Johnson, “Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software”, Addison-Wesley Professional, Amsterdam, 1994. 24. F. Buschmann, R. Meunier, H. Rohnert, P. Sommerlad, “A System of Patterns: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture, Volume 1”, John Wiley & Sons, 1996. 25. J. Bergin, “Fourteen Pedagogical Patterns”, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs EuroPLoP, Irsee, 2000. 26. A. Albers, T. Deigendesch, T. Turki, “Design Pattern in Microtechnology”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design ICED’09, Stanford, 2009. 27. F.A., Salustri, “Using Pattern Languages in Design Engineering”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design ICED’05, Melbourne, 2005. 28. M. Bennett, D. Dvorak, J. Hutcherson, M. Ingham, R. Rasmussen, D. Wagner, “An Architectural Pattern for Goal-Based Control”, Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, 2007 29. G. Meszaros, J. Doble, “A Pattern Language for Pattern Writing”, in “Pattern Languages of Program Design 3”, R. Martin (ed.), Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam, 1997 30. W.A. McDougall, “…The Heavens and the Earth, A Political History of the Space Age”, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1997. 31. A.A. Siddiqi, “Challenge to Apollo, The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974”, NASA History Division, Office of Policy and Plans, Washington, D.C., 2000. 32. Commission of the European Communities, “A Coherent Framework for Aerospace – a Response to the STAR 21 Report”, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 2003. 33. T.A. Heppenheimer, “The Space Shuttle Decision, NASA’s Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle”, NASA History Series, NASA History Office, Washington, D.C., 1999. 34. S. Squassoni and M.S. Smith, “The Iran Nonproliferation Act and the International Space Station: Issues and Options”, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., 2005. 35. M.S. Smith, “Space Stations”, CRS Issue Brief for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., 2005. 36. B. Hendrickx and B. Vis, “Energiya-Buran, The Soviet Space Shuttle”, Praxis Publishing Ltd., Chichester, 2007. 37. J.M. Logsdon, “John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon”, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2010. 38. P. Bizony, “The Man Who Ran The Moon – James E. Webb, NASA, and the Secret History of Project Apollo”, Thunder’s Mouth Press, New York, 2006. 39. United Nations, “United Nations Treaties and Principles of Outer Space”, United Nations Publications, New York, 2002. 40. J. Wöhrle, “dominium terrae. Exegetische und religionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zum Herrschaftsauftrag in Gen 1,26-28”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 121 (2), de Gruyter, 2009. 9 Andreas M. Hein, Andreas C. Tziolas and Richard Osborne 41. J. Attali, “Une brève histoire de l‘avenir”, Librairie Arthème Fayard, Paris, 2006. 42. B. Stableford and D. Langford, “The Third Millennium, A History of the World AD 2000-3000”, Sidgwick & Jackson Limited, London, 1985. 43. A number of science fiction settings are based on this scenario, e.g. Gregory Benfords “The Martian Race” and the “Killzone” universe of a computer game series by Sony Computer Entertainment. (Received 23 February 2011; 12 December 2011) * 10 * *