Episode 427- Normentum
===

[00:00:00] This is the space shot episode 427 for October 3rd, 2021. I'm John Mulnix. Today's episode is a bit different than what I had planned. The shuttle history episode series is going to be on hiatus for a while. I just do not have the time. Between work and personal stuff, it's just been a little bit too busy to do that. 

Since the last time I recorded a podcast and you guys have heard from me, Uh, it's been kind of busy. I got married. We, uh, We've been just kind of a crazy year planning for the party next year. So it's, it's, uh, an interesting time here in the Mulnix household. Um, so for, with that in mind, we're going to be changing up the format of season four. Again. 

Sorry, it's going to go back to those Shuttle history episodes at some [00:01:00] point in the future. I just don't know when. But for today I was really excited to speak with a policy expert at the aerospace corporation. Um, Robin Dickey wrote a paper on building normentum. Um, a framework for how countries and how companies act in space. 

And I really had a fun time talking with her the other day. So without any further delay here's that conversation with Robin Dickey.

[00:01:25] John Mulnix: Today I'm talking with Robin Dickey. She has a space policy and strategy analyst at the aerospace corporation. We're going to be talking about a new paper that she released called building nor mentum. And I'm excited to have her on the podcast. Robin, welcome to the. 

[00:01:40] Robin Dickey: Thank you for having me, John.

[00:01:42] John Mulnix: So you've got a new paper out. It was out in this July great paper, by the way.

I really enjoyed reading it. It's talking about building nor mentum in space. Just go ahead and just do a start off, what, what do you mean by norms and space? And then after you talk to us a little bit about the chapter, I do want to get a little bit about [00:02:00] your background and how you got into the aerospace industry. 

[00:02:04] Robin Dickey: Absolutely. So this topic kind of sits at the intersection between international relations and politics and then space, which can be two very different fields, but obviously overlap quite a bit. And the real point of overlap that I look at in this paper is. How do we determine responsible and irresponsible behavior in outer space or more?

So how do we find general agreement in the international community about would be what should be considered responsible, acceptable, or irresponsible, or even threatening? And so there is no actual, generally accepted definition of norms in the space field, which makes all of this research a bit challenging.

But I tend to operate off the definition that a norm is a generally accepted standard for appropriate [00:03:00] behavior. And so that's what I look at is how do you actually approach that from a diplomatic perspective on spaces?

[00:03:08] John Mulnix: Perfect. It's been a minute since I've had to talk about like normative like policies and stuff since by political science days. So I'm, I'm glad that what I learned in school is actually being, applied here in the real world. It was great to see that in this chapter. So before we go any further.

With this paper, can you give the listeners a little bit of background about yourself? What got you interested in space? What got you interested in space policy? And then lastly, if you have any advice for students looking to enter the field, 

[00:03:36] Robin Dickey: Sure. So I very much have a policy background. Went to both undergrad and graduate school at Johns Hopkins for. Relations in both cases. And I actually wasn't even focused on, on space at all. When I started, I came from a family that is very focused on space and love space, but they're all engineers and I was [00:04:00] always the artsy kid.

So at first I thought, oh, that's, that's just not for me. But Yeah. Yeah, exactly. But then I, had an epiphany right before I was going to graduate school that I was getting really upset when I was in these policy discussions. And no one seemed to be, bringing up space that, just like I had years before they were like, oh, that's that's for the engineers.

And for the science. But people work in and four and around space and therefore space is full of people, problems and policy problems. And so that made me really decide that I wanted that to be the focus of my policy career. So I made that the focus on space throughout the rest of grad school.

And then, pretty much straight out of their CA came to the aerospace corporation, the center for space policy and strategy is this really amazing kind of think tank that really focuses on policy issues. Even though the aerospace corporation is broadly a more engineering, [00:05:00] technical, Company. So we really get to bring together the policy ideas, those big picture questions with some of that, technical background to support and back up what we're looking at, which I think is just an awesome condo.

When you talk about space 

[00:05:15] John Mulnix: I agree a hundred percent. I, I always enjoy reading the papers from the aerospace corporation. So I'm glad there's people like you that are doing this hard work that, have the ability to go in day in, day out and do a lot of the heavy lifting. And I agree completely that not, not enough people realize how much.

Space affects our everyday lives. So it's great that you're working on those big questions and hopefully you can help steer policies and the, the right direction. And that's what we're talking about today is building, building those norms. So let's actually, let's start out. We talked a little bit about norms and what you mean by that?

One of the things that kind of struck me in this paper, just to start off a random topic here is that in the [00:06:00] United States, there's 60 organizations with military spaces. And nine different congressional committees focused on military and commercial space,

Did that, does that surprise you? And does that pose a problem for developing domestic consistent consensus here in the United States?

One other thing real quick, I'm going to just add as a note. I do want to talk about the four difference your framework. If we could we'll jump into the framework after this. 

[00:06:26] Robin Dickey: Okay. Perfect. 

[00:06:27] John Mulnix: Cool. 

[00:06:29] Robin Dickey: So when it comes to whether or not I was personally surprised about the, the vast range of organizations involved in space. I mean, I would say not really, just because that was pretty commonly known information before I even became a space person. And I think logically I could see how that happened.

When you look at space and what space does what space activities provide for the world, it's really all about. Information, space is a way to collect information, [00:07:00] share information move it around to different places. And everyone needs information on something, information on navigation and, and positioning and timing with GPS is used by billions of people around the world every day.

Information such as. Kind of earth observation and those photos that can be taken are really helpful for weather monitoring. And so all this is just to say that everyone can use the information and the services for space, and that means everyone. Has can have a stake in space. And when it comes to, looking at government agencies and programs, therefore makes a lot of sense that a lot of different organizations feel they have some connection and responsibility to space.

So I could absolutely see how it came to be the way it is today.

[00:07:51] John Mulnix: Awesome. For me it's I guess. Necessarily as surprising as it's just oh my gosh, there's all these different entities that have their [00:08:00] fingers in some part of the pie. And it's just, I guess it surprised me that it hasn't been more unified until know. I guess it's still, they're still working on getting a little bit more centralized.

Look at that. Do you think moving towards a centralized framework would be better than the, than what we have now with all of these disparate committees and entities? 

[00:08:21] Robin Dickey: I think it depends on what you're looking at in particular, when it comes to different aspects of space activities, the, the question that you raised really gets to the first of the four points of my framework for decision making when it comes to norms, because that's one where I see that.

Multiple options. You could take a really centralized approach when it comes to space policy on norms where a national entity like the national space council or the national security council really takes the lead in coordinating across all these agencies. But there's also possibilities to do a, maybe a single agency, like the [00:09:00] state department takes the lead because of their nexus to diplomacy and other countries.

Or there might be opportunities for certain kinds of norms that maybe only one or two agencies really touches on and has a stake in that maybe those agencies focus on a bottom up approach of taking, taking the lead. So I don't think that there's a necessarily one answer especially with how complex spaces.

[00:09:27] John Mulnix: well with how often things change too. I mean, the pace of technological development. Could potentially outpace the norm building and everything too. So it's going to be definitely a kind of trite to say this, but the next 10 years are going to be amazing to see, what happens. And I feel like that's what we're going to be seeing over the next, decades is there's always going to be these developments that are just going to keep pushing that, the boundary of what's possible and what we do in space.

And I'm glad you mentioned the four point frame. That that first part is establishing, [00:10:00] establishing domestic buy-in. And then after that, you move on to giving international partners whether those, norms or like treaties, or if they're voluntary can you just walk us through what that, that four-part framework is? 

[00:10:14] Robin Dickey: Yeah, definitely. So when it comes to the framework, I really thought about what are the big decisions that need to be made if I'm an actor. In this case, I mainly focus on the United States is trying to support and lead the development of norms. So I've already touched that on that first point, which is really, before you're going to the international community to talk about norms, you have to get your own house in order.

And like I said, it doesn't necessarily have to be a centralized approach, but you do need to figure out who is making the decisions and how are you agreeing domestic? On what that norm should be. The second point on the initial international partners is really asking, who do you bring your norm ideas [00:11:00] to first, some experts and policymakers really focus on bringing the norms, ideas to allies and partners.

First, that can be a much easier way to get that initial momentum. If, if those who are more likely to agree can get on board first, but it's also been. Just starting with a specific group of states can sometimes really cause problems down the road if others feel excluded. So the alternative approach there might be to bring the, the norm proposals to a more open multilateral forum, like the United nations, the third point.

Is looking at the mechanisms for establishing international commitment, which is really looking at what are the diplomatic tools you're using. Is it going to be a legally binding treaty to establish the norm? Are you going to use more of a non-binding UN resolution or is it even just informal statements and declarations that everyone.

And the important point here [00:12:00] is on the debate over the definition of norms. Some people say that norm is short for normative while others say it's short for normal, with normative, meaning there's some kind of value judgment about what's appropriate. Whereas normal is more about, is this just a pattern everyone is doing.

I am of the camp. That norm means normative. And so that means for the diplomatic mechanisms, there has to be some way to get broad agreement among countries that certain behaviors are acceptable. Certain behaviors are not. And then the fourth and final. Is looking at kinda what's the finish line. If your goal is to establish or helps establish a norm of behavior, how many countries, how many actors do you think need to be in support of that norm to consider it officially established.

And this can vary a lot based off of how many countries feel like they have a stake in the norm, or who feel involved in that sort of behavior. [00:13:00] So that, that's what we call the critical mass. What's that level at which you think that the norm is really going to happen and have broad support.

So that's the, that's the four points in, and now.

[00:13:10] John Mulnix: Perfect. And for, for anybody that's wanting to read the paper, I'll be including a link in the show notes to the full PDF that you can download off the aerospace corporation websites. It's definitely worth checking out. Let's, let's go back to the, the second part of the framework, the, starting like an international cooperation.

What are some examples of missions or activities that you think are like notable or have been useful or productive in either, developing norms or just, even operating a mission or something as simple as that, that could be the framework for something. 

[00:13:48] Robin Dickey: So when I wrote the paper. A couple examples in mind. One big one that I like to talk about a lot is the debrief mitigation guidelines that were developed in [00:14:00] the inner agency, debris coordination committee or IDC, which is a group of 13 kind of national civil space agencies. So that the U S addition to that is NASA which then passed on to the United nations committee on the peaceful uses of outer space or.

So this was two different multi-lateral organizations that were able to come to consensus on nearly identical sets of guidelines on how do you mitigate and prevent the, the scary effects of, of debris in space, which I think is an issue that a lot of countries are very concerned about these days and commercial actors as well.

So that's one where it was a voluntary non-binding set of guidelines. With pretty broad consensus and support, but managed to go, on that second decision point from a relatively small group of, very focused countries worried about debris [00:15:00] to the broader, 170 plus countries in the United.

[00:15:06] John Mulnix: Yeah. And that was one of the things that I have read about for other projects. Debris mitigation is something that affects everyone. So it's definitely one of those topics. We really need to build some norms around. And there's there's commercial companies that are looking at either deorbiting spacecraft or reusing pieces of spacecraft, but having that approach from a government and from international governments to try to tackle that problem is really important.

How do we, how do we keep building these norms and strengthening the norms over the next, decades as, as technologies improve for debris mitigation, but also as we have, the, the launch of thousands of satellites for these new mega constellations from space X and from Amazon with their Kuyper constellation, w w what's the path forward to [00:16:00] here? 

[00:16:01] Robin Dickey: That's a great question. I'm in a pretty big one. I don't know if I can solve all those problems here today. 

[00:16:07] John Mulnix: That would be amazing if you could, I, you would deserve a raise at that point. I, for sure. 

[00:16:11] Robin Dickey: Yeah. Yeah. So I guess what I'll start with is the recognition of the problem, I think is, is a big trend that will help us a lot in the future. I'm not a physicist, but the one, physics aspects that I like to explain. Debris tra any object traveling up in space in low earth orbit is going, upwards of 17,000 miles an hour.

So that means it's something as small as a paint chip is, basically a tiny missile that could destroy satellites. And so this means that any one. After, satellite operators behavior in space can affect everyone. And so I think there, the more actors are involved in space, the more satellites are up there.

There is the more looming recognition that this could be a problem [00:17:00] that that really gets out of hand. So, so I think that's a, that's a positive trend. And a lot of the approaches that folks are talking about today when it comes to norms is instead of necessarily trying to solve all of our problems in one, go say with a giant new version of the outer space treaty that the foundation.

Space law treaty. Instead, a lot of folks are talking about what are the kind of incremental steps we can take? What are, perhaps non-binding ways that we can come to an agreement on one set of behaviors that people recognize are responsible. And then maybe, a couple of years from now, we amend it and, evolve as the technology in this situation.

So that's a conversation that I think is happening more and more. But it is, a challenge because norms take a lot of time. Technology moves very quickly. And so how do you balance between those dynamics, especially when, even when [00:18:00] the overall problem is recognized, not everyone agrees on how you actually get to get to a solution and there's a lot of different possible.

[00:18:07] John Mulnix: What's something that we can do if a country decides to just totally ignore those norms and take an action that could cause you know, a large debris creating event?

[00:18:19] Robin Dickey: So this question really gets to something that I think about a lot when it comes to norms and that's actually, why do we want norms? What is the intended purpose of a norm? Because if the intended purpose of the norm is for all people to behave nicely all the time and never do anything bad, then that is a tall.

Order for norms. And something that I don't know if it has ever been accomplished from an international norm or treaty perspective, but there's a lot of other ways to really think about norms that might be helpful in these situations. A norm might be really helpful in just being able to pick out and.[00:19:00] 

When a country is purposefully behaving badly which can be really important sometimes that might just be needed to justify your response. If one country feels really threatened by another country's behavior and that other country is violating a norm, then there's kind of justification and understanding of, of what the possible responses are.

Or when you look at how do you coordinate international responses when someone behaves badly? If you have a foundation of agreeing what that bad behavior is, or even better had set up some procedures within norm of how the community can respond, that's a much, faster, lower resistance path than having to start from scratch.

Every time someone does something that the international community doesn't agree. So that that's my position is that, the norm is not necessarily going to prevent an actor from doing something bad if they really want to do that bad thing, it's, it's maybe more about what we do now.[00:20:00] 

[00:20:00] John Mulnix: and I, I think going forward, that's a, that's a definitely a good framework to pursue. One of the things that you mentioned in the paper too, is the 2007 anti-satellite weapon test that China conducted. What do you think, if something hypothetically like that were to happen now, do you think the norms are strong enough that there would be, obviously an immediate combination of that, what, what do you think would happen going forward?

If another anti-satellite weapons test were to take place now.

[00:20:32] Robin Dickey: That's a tough one. And when I talk about this in my paper, it's of the example of what does it look like to develop norms? Not by writing down an agreement amongst a group of countries, but instead by individual countries speaking up and saying, this is unacceptable because in 2007, that's exactly what happened really wide diverse range of countries.

This is really dangerous. This is threatening a lot of everyone's satellites in space. And so we're [00:21:00] really concerned about this and think it's unacceptable. But then, when you have these one-off events, the United States destroyed a satellite at a much lower orbit. And so there were much less debris proliferated in, in space.

And so the reaction to that one was much less. Public outcry and similar when India tested their anti-satellite system a couple of years ago, it was also in a relatively low orbit. So the problem with these kinds of ad hoc responses, as a means to develop norms, the upside is, is that it's pretty easy.

You, you make your statement. No one has to negotiate a grueling agreement, but. It's hard to tell where the actual lines are, but the norm, if there's a norm just against doing an anti-satellite test, that makes lots of debris, but the other kinds of tests that really mitigate that debris are okay then, like where do you draw the line between those.

Or do some countries [00:22:00] think, the norm is that every kind of test is unacceptable. So everyone's got their own lens of interpretation instead of a common agreement. So it's, it's really hard to tell, I think if there is a significant asset test that produces lots of debris, then absolutely there will be broad international outcry.

But it's hard to tell, if there are. We go responses, if it truly threatens and interferes with other satellites, you might be able to bring in that old outer space treaty about harmful interference, short of that threshold, it's just really hard to tell what countries will actually take action on versus what they'll say.

[00:22:40] John Mulnix: scary things to think about. That's for sure. 

[00:22:41] Robin Dickey: Up at night.

[00:22:43] John Mulnix: Yeah. It's especially just with how much of our modern way of life relies on services from space. The idea that that could be taken away and, a couple of days after, something an event like that, it's just, it, it is scary. I'm a more positive. Front, there [00:23:00] are a lot of international agreements and cooperations that have really done some amazing things. Could you talk briefly about, how, how do you think the Artemis Accords are gonna play into norm creation in the decades to come. 

[00:23:15] Robin Dickey: So the Artemis Accords fit into a really interesting category of norm efforts that I look at in the paper. And that's this idea that instead of just focusing on negative incentives for norms, which is don't break a norm because. We have a treaty that says you're breaking the law and we'll punish you instead.

What if we develop norms with, positive incentives, if you participate in the norm, you'll get more space, situational awareness data to help you navigate your satellites. Or you can participate in this technology program where you can build your own capabilities or, participate in something with really high prestige.

And so that's where the Artemis Accords comes in that the, the signatories are [00:24:00] agreeing to a set of pretty broad principles about kind of space exploration about sharing data with the public about, acting safely and responsibly as we go to the moon. And so by signing onto these principles, the signatories are also agreeing to participate in this program, the Artemis program together, which means that they all get a hand in kind of this really amazing effort to, to go back to the.

So I really love the idea of looking at what are some positive ways to support norms and offset what some of the costs might be of complying with the norm, because no matter what a norm is constraining behavior in some way, by telling you what's acceptable and unacceptable. And so there's gotta be some ways to help that cost benefit analysis to convince more countries that these constraints are worth.

[00:24:55] John Mulnix: That's I agree with you and that's, what's so exciting about it. What about the optimistic [00:25:00] cords and our return to the moon? And I think from a policy perspective, that's a really good thing to have the, the carrot and the stick as it was. It's really important. People respond to different incentives and having that kind of positive incentive from the Artemis Accords.

And from going back to the moon is pretty awesome. Closer to home and this is, I just want to close with this is. As we, push back to the moon, as we keep expanding our, how, what role space plays in our lives. What's a good way that people at home, whether it's here in the United States or abroad.

Cause I have listeners literally pretty much everywhere, except Antarctica don't have any podcast tracking for that. What, what's something that people could do to, get their elected representatives interested in space.

[00:25:49] Robin Dickey: That's a really good question. So the approach that I take in, in my paper and in my policy research in general is not to say, here's the specific [00:26:00] policy that we think we want to root for. And instead it's, it's saying, here's the. The information here are the challenges, the opportunities that we think will be really helpful as, as folks make the decisions.

So really I think that the big thing that folks at home can really do is just, learn about how space affects your life. I think the more people recognize around the world that space is, is part of everything you do, even though you don't necessarily see it in your life, but anytime. Take take your phone and you go navigate somewhere.

And a lot of times when you're using a credit card, space is so important to agriculture, transportation, disaster prevention. And so just in a general sense building up that, that recognition of what space does for us, I think will be really necessary when it's time to solve a lot of these thorny problems.

And as we move over, I [00:27:00] think most of it is just that people care and that will go a long way towards making a difference in the.

[00:27:08] John Mulnix: fantastic advice, Robin. Thank you so much for coming on the podcast. It's been a pleasure having you on, and I look forward to hopefully having you on again in the future.

[00:27:17] Robin Dickey: Thank you so much, John, this has been a real pleasure.