Selection note: Curated because this 1999 other - collected works from Ames Research Center specifically covers “Single Step to Orbit; a First Step in a Cooperative Space Exploration Initiative”; its abstract describes At the end of the Cold War, disarmament planners included a recommendation to ease reduction of the U.S. and Russian aerospace industries by creating cooperative scientific… This materially informs GShips governance and law.

Evidence boundary: NTRS lists open full text, but this pass assessed catalog metadata and abstract rather than independently validating the document. Inclusion is contextual discovery support, not automatic evidence for a GShips claim.

Stable record
ntrs-20000005106
Topic
governance-law
Type
Other - Collected Works
Publisher
Ames Research Center
Authors
Lusignan, Bruce; Sivalingam, Shivan
Year
1999
Editorial state
metadata curated editorial draft
Reviewer
GShips Project editorial synthesis
Official link checked
2026-07-25

Source-supplied abstract

At the end of the Cold War, disarmament planners included a recommendation to ease reduction of the U.S. and Russian aerospace industries by creating cooperative scientific pursuits. The idea was not new, having earlier been suggested by Eisenhower and Khrushchev to reduce the pressure of the "Military Industrial Complex" by undertaking joint space exploration. The Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) proposed at the end of the Cold War by President Bush and Premier Gorbachev was another attempt to ease the disarmament process by giving the bloated war industries something better to do. The engineering talent and the space rockets could be used for peaceful pursuits, notably for going back to the Moon and then on to Mars with human exploration and settlement. At the beginning of this process in 1992 staff of the Stanford Center for International Cooperation in Space attended the International Space University in Canada, met with Russian participants and invited a Russian team to work with us on a joint Stanford-Russian Mars Exploration Study. A CIA student and Airforce and Navy students just happened to join the Stanford course the next year and all students were aware that the leader of the four Russian engineers was well versed in Russian security. But, as long as they did their homework, they were welcome to participate with other students in defining the Mars mission and the three engineers they sent were excellent. At the end of this study we were invited to give a briefing to Dr. Edward Teller at Stanford's Hoover Institution of War and Peace. We were also encouraged to hold a press conference on Capitol Hill to introduce the study to the world. At a pre-conference briefing at the Space Council, we were asked to please remind the press that President Bush had asked for a cooperative exploration proposal not a U.S. alone initiative. The Stanford-Russian study used Russia's Energia launchers, priced at $300 Million each. The mission totaled out to $71.5 Billion, to send a six-person crew to establish a Mars base and return. It was an on going international venture with plans for new crews, base expansion, and extended exploration at every two year opportunity. The $71.5 Billion international approach contrasted with NASA's own 90-day U.S. - alone study that proposed a package topping $500 Billion by some admissions. NASA's approach was also challenged by an internal D.O.E. proposal at much lower cost, described to the Mars Society last year by Lowell Wood and, of course, by Bob Zubrin's "Mars Direct" proposal.

Abstract text has not been adopted as a GShips conclusion.

What would change this record?

A newer or corrected version, a retraction, a verified duplicate, a material topic mismatch, a changed access state, or claim-level review would trigger a dated editorial update.

Open the source record (opens external site in a new tab)

Metadata-curated context; independent domain and claim review pending · Last edited 2026-07-25 · Suggest a correction

Accountability record

How to inspect this page

Scope: Atlas resource ntrs-20000005106

Page citations and accountability links

Assumptions and limits

  • NTRS lists open full text, but this pass assessed catalog metadata and abstract rather than independently validating the document. Inclusion is contextual discovery support, not automatic evidence for a GShips claim.
  • Source-supplied titles, abstracts, authors, and dates may require correction against the canonical full text.

What would change this page?

A newer or corrected version, retraction, verified duplicate, material topic mismatch, changed access state, or claim-level assessment would change this record.

People, review, and conflicts

Prepared by
GShips Project
Editorial status
metadata-curated-editorial-draft
Editorial reviewer
GShips Project editorial synthesis
Last editorial review
No editorial-review date recorded
Independent review
pending
Independent reviewer
No independent reviewer assigned
Last independent review
No independent-review date exists
Last content edit
Not recorded separately
Official source or link verified
2026-07-25

Declared conflicts

  • The maintainer intends to explore a commercial venture based on some GShips work. No entity, outside funding, customer, sponsor, or indexed-organization relationship currently exists.

Suggest a correction to this page