From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 16:04:50 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: bush is an idiot
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1600000004@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>To:    talk.politics.space
>From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
>Re:    ISRO
>Date:  19 Aug 1992
> 
><<unsigned>>
> 
>I _still_ don't know your name.  It is customary -- but not
>required -- to sign your name at the bottom of a posting so that
>people don't have to guess from your userid.  Elaborate signatures
>are not required.

Housekeeping:  My newsreader provides the "Path" in the first line and
the "From" on the second; I assumed that my name, Russ Brown, appeared
on the "From" line just as yours does.
> 
>>ISRO has had problems with its Agni launcher system.  Purchase of
>>hardware and technology from Glavkosmos (xCCCP) for a cryogenic second
>>stage would give India the capability to deliver "payloads" to foreign
>>capitals, e.g., Beijing.
> 
>>I'm not sure who has it wrong.  The important question is "Why does
>>India want this added launch capability for the Augmented Space Launch
>>Vehicle (ASLV), sometimes called the Agni (Fire).
> 
>You are confusing two different systems, the solid-fuel Agni
>ballistic missile and the space launch systems, of which ASLV is
>one.  As far as I know, India is not having problems with Agni.
>The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) does not have
>anything to do with Agni (at least not directly -- see below).
>India has had trouble with its space launch vehicles, although it
>recently launched a satellite, so maybe things are back on track.

According to Milhollin's article (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
11/89, p. 31-35), "The first stage of the Agni, India's new military 
missile, is probably identical to the Scout" (a US system) "and ASLV 
first stages".  

and,

"The Indian space program first mentions the Agni in its 1982-83 annual
report as a booster rocket for the Polar Space Launch Vehicle: six
identical Agni boosters will lift the missile's first stage.  The
boosters, in turn, are adaptations of the first stage of the SLV-3. 
Indeed, the SLV-3 is the only large booster motor that India has: it
carries nine tons of propellant, as does the Agni's first stage; no
other Indian booster carries anything close to that amount.  India has
used the same booster to live the Advanced Space Launch Vehicle.  After
the Agni launch, a number of sources, Indian as well as foreign,
reported that the Agni first stage was identical to the SLV-3 first
stage.  Thus, the main rocket for India's missile program has come from
India's space program."

India has successfully launched on 2 vehicles in 6 tries, the SLV in
1980 and the ASLV in 1989.  The May launch of the Agni was considered a
partial failure (ref: North American News Report, Dateline, New Delhi,
05/30); India's Defense Research and Development Organization stated,
"Later analysis shows that the mission objective of the final
maneuvering could not be fulfilled due to the premature ignition and
separation of the second stage."
> 
>In the past, there has been some cross-fertilization between
>India's missile and launcher programs.  I don't recall the
>details, but I think the solid fuel rocket motor programs were
>essentially indistinguishable.  I believe that the same motor is
>used as a stage in Agni and in the ASLV.  I would expect that
>experience from space launches would be useful in India's missile
>program.  But it is extremely unlikely that India will use Russian
>cryogenic liquid fuel rocket motors or technology derived from
>them in its ballistic missile programs.
> 
>Note: I agree that the United States should not look kindly on
>India's ballistic missile programs.  The Agni is probably intended
>for delivering nuclear warheads to China.  While I would prefer
>that they not do this, I can see India's side of the issue.  China
>is India's main regional military rival (India doesn't see
>Pakistan as a threat, though the feeling is hardly mutual).  Why
>should China but not India be allowed a nuclear deterrent?  This
>is, after all, what the NPT says.

India claims that the Glavkosmos technology is intended for the
launching of large loads on the Geosynchronous Space Launch Vehicle in
1997-98.  There is no reason to doubt the statement.  The standing
question is how the technology (not just the hardware) could be applied
to other uses.

Russ Brown (russ@pmafire.inel.gov)