I'm really fond of the non-great power space programs, as they provide ample evidence for how the "greens in space" argument applies to the leapfrog nations. In nearly every case, the point is to launch satellites for environmental observation and communication. Of the space-faring leapfrog nations, only Iran and India are seriously pursuing their own launch vehicle technology (with clear military implications) -- pretty much everyone else piggybacks on someone else's rocket.
ALSAT-1 has already transmitted more than 1,000 photos for the benefit of users in national and regional development, telecommunications, agriculture and the water resources sectors. It has also played a role following the earthquake that affected Algiers and surrounding areas in 2003, the tsunami that ravaged Southeast Asia and recent French forest fires.
On the heels of the initial success, the Algerian Space Agency (ASAL) has developed a 15-year satellite programme.
As the Moor Next Door puts it, very cool.
I just love watching all space programs. I find them quite interesting.
'greens in space' implies that the people are going to space, rather tahn just the satellites. I reckon that description should be reconsidered cos you don't wanna give the wrong impression and more countries sending more people into space won't do much to protect the environment.
Satellites however are good and should be as few in number as the internatoinal community can arrange: collaborative efforts, built for maximum longevity of purpose and bird lifespan rather than lots of birds taking up lots of orbital boxes & rocket fuel & make more space junk. The closer the satellites are positioned to earth the fewer orbits are available.