From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Russia/India Sanctions (1 of 2)
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 18 Aug 92  21:34:22

A few comments regarding the Russia/India sanctions discussion:
  
Mark Goodman writes:
>You both have it wrong.  India wants to use a high specific-impulse
>former Soviet CRYOGENIC LIQUID FUEL ROCKET MOTOR to improve the
>performance of its ASLV (Advanced? Space Launch Vehicle).  This
>type of motor is extremely ill-suited for use on ballistic
>missiles.  No one who knew how to make solid fuel motors -- as
>India does -- would use it.
  
    Hmm...  I can name several operational IRBMs and ICBMs that use
liquid fuels.  Atlas, Titan, SS-6, and Scud to name a few.  For
example, the Atlas used cryogenic propellants, not just hypergolics.
You may consider that liquid propellants for ballistic missiles is
"clumsy" (and I agree), but they certainly worked for the systems
listed above.  And liquid fuel Titans remained first line US ICBMs
for 20 years after solid fuel ICBMs were also introduced.  (By the
way, ISRO - the Indian Space Research Organization -claimed the
liquid engine was for their Geosynchronous Space Launch Vehicle -
GSLV - and not the ASLV).
  
Mark Goodman writes:
>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.
George Herbert adds:
>However, I do agree that the reason that this was opposed was that
>the US was either trying to cover its technological lead or due to
>massive mishandling in the state Department etc.  I sincerely
>believe that the Indians will use the engines as advertised, and
>wish them luck with them.  The US should give up and acknowledge
>that states with existing ballistic missile technology won't gain
>much from a space-specific bit of technology.
  
    Maybe I can add a few points to this discussion.  I think there
are some more dimensions that haven't been covered ...
  
Is there risk of technology transfer from civil to military
applications within the aerospace industry in India?
   India has fielded two missiles of the "ballistic missile" type
("ballistic missile" as defined from the context of this discussion)
- the Agni and Privthi.  Both use a combination of solid and liquid
fuels.  In particular, the Agni missile uses technology identical to
that used in the ISRO SLV-3 (and ISRO admits this).   While the
funding organizations in the Indian government for the two programs
are different, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. manufactures both the Agni
and SLV/ASLV within the same factory.    Hindustan Ltd. claims
"there are two separate groups with completely different teams" --
but they are within the same factory and firm.  Furthermore, the
company is completely government owned, and is operated within the
Defense Ministry.
   This would indicate an environment conducive to the possibility
of technology transfer and not a purely "civil" space activity.
  
Can space systems be back-engineered into ballistic missiles?
   I'd have to say "yes" unreservedly.  Look at the current US and
Russian and Chinese stable of launch vehicles.  The Atlas ICBM
became the Atlas launch vehicle.  The Titan ICBM became the Titan
launch vehicle.  The Delta is based upon the Thor IRBM.  You can do
the same mapping for most ex-Soviet/Russian launch vehicles.  Even
the Chinese Long March vehicle is a derivative of a Chinese ICBM.
   If you can build a space vehicle, you can build ICBMs.  Maybe
a launch vehicle isn't as operational (launch on demand) as desired
for an ICBM - but they provide 99% of the engineering know-how and
90% of the operational characteristics.  And back-engineering from a
space launcher into an ICBM is a lot easier than vice versa.
  
So what's wrong with Russia selling rocket engines to India?
   On the surface, nothing.  However, the deal is not only to sell 2
engines, but the Russians are to train Indian technologists in how
to produce these rocket engines.
   Now, this would probably be a different story if Russia was just
selling rocket engines to India and not also providing training in
how to produce more of the same and improved versions.
  
What about US or French firms offering the same deal to India?
   There were some rumors from ISRO that General Dynamics and
Arianespace had offered substantially the same deal to ISRO before
the Russian deal, and the sanctions were "commercial" retaliation
for ISRO not giving them the contract.  I did some calling around
and based upon available data believe this rumor is false.
    General Dynamics could not offer engine technology to ISRO-
among other things, GD doesn't make engines.  They buy them from
Aerojet, Rocketdyne or Pratt & Whitney.  None of these firms plan to
sell their technology to India.  And the US government regulating
agencies state they would not allow such a technology transfer deal
under the MCTR.  Perhaps GD offered entire engines as part of
launch vehicle - but this is not the deal the Russians offered.
     Arianespace had offered a similar deal to Brazil as part of an
offset deal in association with launch of Brazilsat on Ariane.
However, this offer was withdrawn when the US and other member
nations in ESA and owners/stockholders in Arianespace objected on
the grounds of MCTR.  (By the way, the US threatened sanctions there
as well).  Ariane/ESA (and the French government) could not offer
engine technology under the MCTR -- and if they did they would also
get slapped with sanctions by the other signatories of the MCTR.
                                        (cont)

--- Maximus 2.00