From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:35 PDT
Subject: Re: bush is an idiot
Nf-ID: #R:10702946.20.712898282@eng2.eng.m:-1562942818:cdp:1600000004:000:3307
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 19 07:35:00 1992


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.
 
>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.
 
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.
 
>>Furthermore, India and Glavkosmos offered to allow the United States
>>to verify that the rocket motors were not being used for ballistic
>>missiles.  This would have set an extraordinarily useful precedent.
>>
>>Instead, the United States blew it and simply reinforced the widespread
>>view that export control laws, which are supposed to be based on military
>>security concerns, are really just a cover for a western technology
>>cartel.
 
>Perhaps this situation is not quite as pure and simple as implied.
 
I stand by the second paragraph.  This _is_ how the rest of the
world views U.S. export controls.  As for the first paragraph,
perhaps I should have said "This *could* have set an
extraordinarily useful precedent" instead of "would have."
 
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.
 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+