Part I
Dual-Use Outer Space Technologies: The Terminology
The meaning and scope of certain terms, many of which are used interchangeably to describe specific objects and behaviours in the transfer of dual-use technologies can confuse the experienced reader just as much as the novice. Mutual understanding of these terms is therefore crucial in understanding the issues related to this paper. The purpose of Part I is therefore to define the terminology to be used below. Among the many terms with multiple meanings are technology transfer, dual use, outer space (as distinct from air space), ballistic missile, delivery vehicle, space launcher and sounding rocket.
There is also a need to explore the latest developments in capabilities and the identification of different categories of competence. The question of who does what in outer space will accordingly be addressed at some length. A description of what are called Established Space-Competent (EtSC) States is also appropriate, not only because of these countries' capability to manufacture space equipment, but also because of their capacity to supply outer space technology to the international market. 1
However, it is not enough to describe the EtSC States alone. Hence, the Emerging Space-Competent (EmSC) States, known as technology-recipient States, are also identified. The relationships, routes, and progress of EmSC States in their quest for outer space capability do not necessarily resemble those of EtSC States, although the past, present, and prospective growth of their national space programmes are unquestionably interwoven. In many instances such progress is an essential factor in the technology transfer debate. This is particularly true of the actual and potential military capabilities of EmSC States.
1. Definition of Terms
The transfer of dual-use outer space technology is such a vast subject that an entire thesis could be devoted to its terminology alone. However, for obvious reasons, the present paper will focus on the meaning of technology transfer and dual use, describe how these terms are applied in the context of outer space, and examine how dual use can be effectively identified among different applications.
A. Technology Transfer
The term "technology transfer" may be used in a variety of circumstances because there is little agreement among experts on its actual meaning. While some experts contend that a clear-cut meaning can be identified, at least one other school of thought argues that the term "technology transfer" is meaningless. There may be some justification for the latter argument since technology transfer could be used, in a general sense, to imply the movement of technology from a supplier to a recipient. This may seem to be an oversimplification, but it is actually quite a complex statement. First, those involved in transfer can be individuals, companies, States, or any other type of enterprise. This complicates the issue in that "technology transfer" defines neither the supplier nor the recipient, thus creating an "identity" problem when the issue of legal responsibility has to be addressed.
A further complication is the fact that the word "technology" is itself vague. Is it an abstract concept or can it be identified as a tangible asset? The answer is not necessarily readily evident. A "grey area" between the two concepts would provide a greater degree of flexibility in definition according to the circumstances at stake. For instance, a transfer could involve complete or selective movement of know-how regarding a given system, manufacturing equipment, finished product, or service (see Diagram I.1.A). As the Diagram illustrates, technology transfer can also affect a prospective recipient's increased capability to become autonomous and, therefore, also become, in its turn, a supplier in the future. However, it is also important to note that mere movement of goods or services may not necessarily enable the recipient to access the technology. For instance, a recipient may engage in technology transfer but unable to absorb it because of insufficient scientific, human, financial, or other fundamental technological resources. Thus, "technology transfer" would not apply in such a case--although it could be argued that an attempt to transfer technology may have been made. Even if there is no difficulty in accepting this assumption, there will still be a problem in regard to ability to identify and distinguish the movement of technology and assets from non-transfer-related events.
To reach a clear definition of technology transfer, three other issues must be addressed: (1) the conditions in which it can occur; (2) the ability the supplier/recipient to provide/absorb transferred assets so as to permit their coherent use; and (3) the fundamental objectives behind the decision the supplier/recipient to transfer/acquire the technology. In the first and second instances, it is difficult to estimate the transfer conditions because the flow of technology between a supplier and a recipient may not be easily identifiable. For example, in a joint-venture, the R&D of a given system may depend not only on a supplier's input but also--and to varying degrees--on that of a potential recipient. In such an example, the concept of sharing technology R&D may also be added to the definition as part and parcel of the technology transfer process.
Additionally, input should not be characterized only in such terms of abstract participation as the provision of knowledge, but also in terms of human, financial, and other investment resources - which adds to the difficulty of identifying technology transfers. In the third instance, the decision to acquire technology--as distinct to undertaking indigenous R&D--is often closely linked to a need to decrease programme costs and development time, while at the same time widening the scope of potential applications. 2
Therefore, it seems that, to be pertinent, a working definition of "technology transfer" for the purpose of this paper has to take three factors into consideration - namely:
|
(a) the existence of asset movement, including knowledge and services, between two or more protagonists; (b) the possibility that a recipient may employ the transferred assets either to produce finished products or to provide services without the assistance of the original supplier; and (c) the ability of a recipient to have access to a given technology in a manner that would save time, financial investment, and other resources. |
In conclusion, for the purpose of the present discussion, the term "technology transfer" is neither meaningless nor vague. On the contrary, it carries a strategic vision and responds to specific criteria.
B. Outer Space and Dual-Use Technologies
In the light of the above definition, the transfer of outer space technologies would naturally refer to the movement of outer space assets, applications, and services between suppliers and recipients. However, outer space is an environment and it is not particularly obvious, a priori, how the outer space environment fundamentally relates to technology transfer. There is no precise, universally agreed, legal, technical, or political definition of the boundaries separating outer space from air space or from deep space, nor is there any agreement in diplomatic and/or scientific quarters of the term "outer space" itself. 3 One of the major obstacles in defining the boundary between air space and outer space is the difficulty in obtaining agreement on the quantifiable physical parameters dividing the two environments. Moreover, this boundary is not necessarily stable and may, at some point in time, be affected by atmospheric changes and/or physical phenomena. However, for the purpose of the present discussion, a working definition of outer space could be as follows: 4
[o]uter space is all of the space surrounding the Earth where objects can move in at least one full orbit around the Earth without artificial propulsion systems according to the laws of celestial mechanics, without being prevented from doing so by the frictional resistance of the Earth's atmosphere. It extends from an altitude above the earth of approximately 100 km upwards.
Under this working definition, any technologies which contribute directly to applications in such an environment could be considered as outer space technologies: e.g., rocket boosters, satellites and their components, and Earth-based control and tracking systems. Equally, other technologies contributing to these and other outer space applications in a less direct manner could be considered as "related" outer space technologies -- for instance, the technologies of systems and sub-systems which could be used instead of the traditional means of manufacturing and operating space devices. In consequence, the following questions may then be raised: (1) what are dual-use outer space technologies, and (2) how can they be distinguished from single-use technologies? Are operational interactions and technical similarities the only criteria to differentiate dual- from single-use technologies? Or are there other more conceptual and less technical reasons?
The term dual is used in its generic sense to denote the mathematical number "two". When used in relation to an operative verb such as use, "dual" means more than one employment, nature, or characteristic of a given object or method, or any other word it qualifies. More specifically, in the context of outer space technologies, dual use can be defined as being a usage which has both civil and military employment, whether proven or potential. In a more general sense, dual use also embraces weapon technologies and their systems and sub-systems, in any of their different basing modes: ground-based--fixed or mobile, ship-mounted, air-mounted, and space-based. However, while there are a great variety of weapon-specific systems that could be associated with outer space, it is the non-weapon technology that could be employed for military purposes which is the most difficult to define.
For example, in rocketry, the line differentiating booster technologies from ballistic missiles is rather fine. It is a core issue in international security debates. Indeed, it is often thought that the possession of the former is a passport to obtaining the latter. However, rocketry technology is only one component of the dual-use debate. It is therefore important to understand the dual-use nature of both artificial satellites 5 and rocket/satellite Earth-based tracking technologies. Here too, the line between civil and military technologies is difficult to draw. One may therefore question how these technologies can be identified and also, equally importantly, how they have been employed in terms of dual use. The discussion which follows is an attempt to illuminate these issues.
C. Space Booster or Ballistic Missile Technologies?
Different launch vehicles may provide distinct, diverse applications and three major categories of carrier rockets using outer space technologies can be identified: (a) sounding rockets, (b) space launchers, and (c) ballistic missiles. While the first two rockets are essential to the space boosters (or space launching vehicles) used for the exploration of outer space, the BM is propelled into outer space with the intent to use that environment only as a pathway to its final destination back into the Earth's atmosphere--with, however, the exception of an attack on satellites such as Anti-Satellite (ASAT) weapons.
Sounding rockets are usually employed for scientific studies and provide the capability to conduct endo-atmospheric and, more importantly, exo-atmospheric experiments 6 --the latter providing limited access (a few minutes) to microgravity. 7 These rockets usually have a range less than 1000 km and most have a single solid fuelled-propelled body (see examples in Photos I.1.1 and I.1.2). In most cases, their trajectories are designed in such a way that, via its parachute, the payload returns to the vicinity of the launch pad, thus allowing the payload-bay and its scientific equipment to be recuperated and perhaps reused for other missions.
As may be seen from Photo I.1.3, sounding rockets are intended to carry experimental scientific experiment equipment in their payload-bay or to conduct experiments themselves. Different signals from experiments provide Earth stations with data derived from devices in the payload-bay, such as visual and parametric observation of experiments conducted during the endo-atmospheric and/or exo-atmospheric phases of the flight. This allows scientists in Earth-based stations to have real-time access to the experiments and the possibility of transmitting experiment-related telecommand signals 8 to the vehicle's experimental scientific equipment.
Space launchers are, however, technologically more complex and financially more demanding than sounding rockets. Their technical characteristics and mission functions are also different, because space launchers are exo-atmospheric rockets which can be used to reach low Earth orbits (approximately 150-500 km), high altitudes such as geostationary 9 orbit, and even deep space (over 40,000 km). Thus, there are different types of space launchers for different Earth and transfer orbits. Consequently, launchers designed to reach geostationary and high transfer orbits are more complex to construct than those for low orbits because--assuming the rockets carry equal payloads-- considerably higher thrust power is required. Space lunchers can have different body structures and propulsion fuels: some have a single body while others have three to four stages as well as strap-on boosters. 10 Usually, strap-on boosters are propelled by solid fuel, while the main body of the space launcher uses a combination of solid- and liquid-propelled motors. 11 As shown in Photo I.1.4, liquid-fuel motors are structurally more complex and more cumbersome to operate than solid devices. Only a few States are able to manufacture cryogenic propellant, a special high-performance liquid fuel for liquid boosters. 12
Mission space launchers--which are sometimes called expandable launchers--are rockets which place satellites and manned vehicles into Earth orbits or launch probes into deep space. They have a greater payload capability than sounding rockets, although their satellites do not always contain scientific study instruments. The difference in mission purpose also reflects a difference in the form and size of the rocket's payload-bay structure (see Photos I.1.5 and I.1.6). In addition, the type of trajectory of space launchers also differ from those of sounding rockets, with the additional particularity that space launchers are not usually intended to return to the Earth: they either burn-up when they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere or remain in outer space as space debris. There are, however, vehicles that carry astronauts into outer space and are designed to have their manned capsulae re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and then be parachuted into the sea or onto the ground as well as the capability to perform regular aircraft-like landings.
Manufacturing technologies for sounding rockets and space launchers are very similar to those used in developing delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles (BMs), although the use of BMs differs in principle and purpose. For example, sounding rockets (apart from air-launched ones) and space launchers perform a vertical or near vertical launch and are propelled into outer space for a given mission. Some of them execute a V-shape trajectory to re-enter the atmosphere. BMs, on the other hand, are propelled into outer space by a booster rocket (usually also via a vertical or near-vertical launch), after which they make a free-fall descent towards a given target on the ground or at sea, performing a ballistic trajectory to deliver a military payload (see Diagram I.1.B). In other cases, a single missile may have a varying number of smaller vehicles (re-entry vehicles) operating the re-entry of the atmosphere and completing the ballistic trajectory described above.
BMs can also use space booster technologies for specific military needs - for example, the re-entry of rockets or their nosecones and control during the re-entry part of the flight or special computers and software for guidance and target-locking purposes. In addition, the structural form of BM payload-bays may be only slightly different from that of the space boosters. Furthermore, their payload-bays are usually located at the upper part of the rocket, although they are designed to carry munition payloads for hit-and-kill (kinetic-encounter), nearby-explosion purposes, and/or radiation effect (see Diagram I.1.C). Depending on the size of the rocket and its type of fuel propulsion, the payload may vary from conventional to mass destruction munitions (e.g., nuclear, chemical, or biological/toxin agents). An example of a BM payload-bay with re-entry vehicles warheads is shown in Photo I.1.7.
BMs exist in different versions and basing modes, including fixed ground-based, road/railway mobile, submarine- and air-launched vehicles, some of which have a range of up to 16,000 km, with apogees of up to 12,000 km. 13 In addition, BMs can be either solid or liquid-propelled, the latter being more common in long-range intercontinental missiles. Thus, the components of such rockets are undeniably dual-use in character and the acquisition of space-booster manufacturing capability provides the recipient country or enterprise with the basic technology for developing BMs.
Photo I.1.7: Example of a Ballistic Missile Payload-bay [image non disponible]
Courtesy of the US DoDConfiguration of a payload nose cone and three warheads: Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV) shown with protective nose cone removed.
The reverse is also true, that is to say that access to BM manufacturing capability provides the recipient country or enterprise with the basic technology for developing space launchers. Moreover, the infrastructure created for outer space applications may also have other military ramifications in the rocketry field. This is especially the case with regard to launch sites, because space booster launching sites can also be used as missile bases - although experience has so far shown that the reverse is often the case when missile or air force bases have been used as launching sites.
D. The Nature of Dual-Use Satellite Technologies
In general, there are three major categories of artificial orbiting satellites: scientific, application, and test (experimental). Scientific satellites are space-orbiting devices for scientific experiments, as discussed above in connection with sounding rockets, and they carry an array of different measuring devices. Application satellites are designed for meteorological operations, remote-sensing, communications, geodetic measurements, and various other uses in outer space. Test satellites are to confirm technologies for future satellites or for space launchers.
Similarly to space vehicle technologies, satellite technologies play an important civilian role in the development and life of modern society, providing both real-time services and a platform on which various scientific field experiments can be made. However, the nature of satellites' working environment and the variety of operations it offers also makes satellites attractive for military purposes, not least because while air space is subject to States' national laws and sovereignty, satellites can move around in outer space without any such legal constraints. In addition, they can move around the Earth in different orbital planes (e.g., low Earth orbit, circular semi-synchronous orbit, elliptic semi-synchronous orbit, and geo-synchronous orbit), 14 thus allowing some degree of flexibility in preparing local, regional, and over-the-horizon military contingency plans or campaigns.
Moreover, satellites are also able to cover large areas and provide data repeatedly. Depending on the technology involved, the data may be for short-term tactical use or long-term analysis of military strategy. Having now been used both directly and indirectly during conflict and in peace, the value of military satellite technology is no longer in doubt. 15
Complete satellite systems have been developed as dedicated military devices and an array of satellites for strategic and tactical reconnaissance as well as intelligence data collection now support nuclear and conventional deterrence postures as well as actual military operations. Existing dedicated military technology includes satellites which can emit and receive communications signals that are owned or operated by the armed forces of different countries. Such satellites provide "Communications, Command, Control and Intelligence" (C3I) capability supporting military combat operations. 16 Similarly, meteorological satellites can supply real-time global and local visibility through the visible light and infra-red parts of the image spectrum.
Data provided by geodetic satellites, for instance, were originally designed to determine the exact size and shape of the Earth's surface and its gravitational field in order to produce highly-detailed maps showing the precise location of cities, towns and villages. Today, geodetic satellites are also used to improve the accuracy of intercontinental ballistic or cruise missiles. 17
In addition, navigation satellite technology, which can provide the position of a receiver-point on Earth, is also used to make atmospheric measurements to determine optimal missile trajectories (e.g., water vapour content and wind velocity along a missile's possible trajectory). Navigation satellite data are also used for troop-position determination in and around battlefields and elsewhere. Ocean surveillance satellites are used to locate surface ships and to determine their nature and direction. Such satellites often carry infra-red and microwave radiation detection sensors which can detect submarine missile launchings. There are also specially conceived satellites which carry infra-red devices to monitor the heat of rocket plume to detect BM launches and calculate their range of operation. Thus, early-warning satellites can be used to detect a potential BM first strike. In addition to these detection and identification missions, this technology could also be used , if necessary, to provide missile flight data on weather and other atmospheric conditions and guidance in order to optimize the performance of weapons and weapon systems in retaliatory missions.
Other reconnaissance satellites of a more general nature are designed for (a) area surveillance and close-look missions; (b) monitoring military radio communications; (c) detecting/jamming missile telemetric data; 18 and (d) monitoring/verifying arms control and disarmament agreements. For example, reconnaissance satellites have been used to detect and/or identify Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) silo bases, as well as other ground-based mobile missiles and their systems. This type of mission includes BMs manufacturing and storage facilities, in addition to the monitoring of naval bases and docked nuclear and other submarines. Electronic intelligence satellites, on the other hand, can hinder an adversary's incoming missile or satellite telemetric signals by jamming.
However, data provided by certain civil satellites--such as non-dedicated military systems or platforms--have also been used for military purposes, 19 thanks largely to the availability of military-grade data on the civilian market. For instance, the availability of Earth observation data of 10-m resolution on the civil market responds to an ever-increeasing need for highly accurate map-making equipment in urban and environmental planning, but this technology could also provide the necessary equipment to increase the accuracy of weapons and weapon systems. 20 The use of civil satellite data for military purposes is not limited to such examples . It can also be linked, as dedicated military satellites are, to the actual support of real-time battlefield and other operations.
It is such factors as these, coupled with the continuous technological increase in civil satellites and the changing environment of international security, that cause some experts to question the very definition of the term "dual use" in regard to satellites. They argue that the term has mostly been considered from what is frequently called the traditional unilateral perspective of the military and civil use of outer space technologies. 21 To redefine the term "dual use", a proposal has been made to adopt a different approach referred to as simultaneous multiple use of satellite technologies. This argument is that, in the not so distant future, it will become common (as distinct from ad hoc) practice for civil satellites to perform military missions and military satellites to perform civil functions. Hence dual use will become multiple use. Such a change in terminology, if it were to be widely accepted, would revolutionize the way satellite applications in particular, and space technologies in general, are perceived and employed.
E. Rocket/Satellite Earth-Based Tracking Technologies
The dual-use nature of space booster and satellite technologies is also a factor in the development of their Earth-based control systems. 22 Space agencies and institutions worldwide possess emission/reception antennae, radars, optical devices and other technical equipment that are used for the tracking and acquisition of launch vehicle and spacecraft telemetry. These systems can receive telemetry from the vehicles and send commands to the spacecraft (see Photo I.1.8), notably to acquire spacecraft velocity and position with respect to the Earth and to provide real-time transmissions of such data to space flight operations facilities during and after the active life of satellites. In addition, these types of antennae are also used to study non-artificial space debris and meteorites.
Telescopes and radar-interferometry and state-of-the-art technology such as laser systems can also provide the data identifying rocket trajectories and satellite orbits. 23 Figure I.1.1 illustrates an example of active imaging whereby lasers are used to illuminate an object in outer space as an aid to passive equipment such as a telescope. In contrast, Figure I.1.3 shows the kind of image that can be obtained from optical systems on the ground namely, the Hubble Space Telescope in outer space where the satellite's main body and solar panels are clearly identifiable (compare it with Photo I.1.9).
However, given the appropriate specific technology, Telemetry, Telecommand & Tracking (TT&T) antennae can also be used for military purposes. For example, fixed ground-based and ship-mounted radars employed to track space debris are also utilized as dedicated or non-dedicated military systems to provide (a) early-warning of ballistic missiles and (b) surveillance of other objects crossing the radar's range. Indeed, in addition to providing early-warning of BM launches, military systems are also designed to track satellites and space debris, as well as BMs re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. This capability enables objects and missiles to be distinguished in flight. Accordingly, dedicated military systems are used to maintain a database of objects in Earth orbit, the number and position of which are constantly changing.
Fixed ground-based and ship-mounted antennae used for the TT&T of satellites are also employed for the reception of telemetric data of ballistic missile tests. Other less weapon-related employments of this kind of equipment include the use of an array of antennae for dedicated military communications purposes.
Nevertheless, the acquisition of all or any of the above-mentioned technologies can be as time-consuming and costly as it is attractive, and the difficulties commensurate to the potential benefits envisaged. It is for these and other reasons that States which are active in outer space activities do not possess or indeed have access to every feasible type of application--a matter which is discussed in the following chapter.
| The Hubble Bug, as imaged by the Philips Lab at the Air Force Maui Optical Station at Mount Haleakala, Hawaii. |
2. The Development of Outer Space and Related Capabilities
Identifying actual, emerging, and potential outer-space competency among States is more difficult than it might seem. Moreover, any attempt to find precise, widely acceptable definitions of such terms as "Established Space-Competent State" and "Emerging Space-Competent State" would call for an in-depth analysis and comparison of several unequal parameters which are inappropriate to the present paper. 24 However, there are some parameters which, when considered individually or together, can identify some measure of outer-space competence. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussion competence in manufacturing qualified outer space equipment 25 can be taken as a dividing line to distinguish the haves from the have nots in respect of three major infrastructure capabilities: the capability to design and manufacture (a) rocketry, (b) orbiting satellites or probes, and (c) launching and tracking site installations. In all of these areas, manufacturing infrastructure capabilities include the technologies used for launching and orbiting devices, and Tracking, Telemetry, and Control (TT&C) plus the maintenance of adequate services and a sustained commitment to the exploitation of these capabilities and services, and the training of personnel.
It should be noted from the outset that only a few countries have so far demonstrated their outer-space competence. A non-exhaustive list of such EtSC States inevitably includes the USA, the former Soviet Union (now the Russian Federation), the European Space Agency (ESA) as an organization in its own right as well as most of its individual Member States, and Canada. However, a long, well-established reputation in the international commercial market should not be considered as sine qua non for inclusion EtSC State list, and therefore other countries which have more recently entered that market, such as Australia, China, and Japan, should also be added to such a list.
States can be classified into four categories of access to outer space technologies with respect to the development and sophistication of their space programmes. Currently, as leaders in space competence, the USA and the Russian Federation belong to what could be defined as Category I. In Category II, we find States which manufacture outer space equipment without, however, having the same degree of outer-space activity as the Americans and the Russians. Without being exhaustive, China, Japan, and various European countries (individually or collectively within the framework of ESA) can be listed in this category.
Then come the States in Category III. These are countries which are still acquiring basic, qualified outer space technologies, some with the aim of joining the ranks of EtSC States and indeed becoming suppliers of technologies and services before the end of the century. Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, and Pakistan can be identified as belonging to Category III and, to a lesser extent, other States such as South Africa could also be included as discussed below. Category IV of outer space competence covers States, such as Indonesia and South Korea, which have announced their intention to initiate outer space activity sometime in the future. Also assignable to this Category States which have no intention of manufacturing systems or sub-systems, but wish to access derivative services.
These four categories of outer-space competence should be regarded as working guides for a better understanding of the various issues at stake in the transfer of outer space technologies. To illustrate this point, the discussion which follows will focus on the evolution and present state of development of different outer space programmes and their dual-use civil/military character. In many instances, the relationship between the civil and military employment of the technologies is obscure. Thus, the discussion will illustrate why Category I and II EtSC States are presently technology supplier States and why and how EmSC States have become technology-recipient States.
A. Established Space-Competent States: Technology Supplier States
1. Reaching Outer Space
The first country to put its research and development of outer space and related activities into actual practice was the former Soviet Union, by launching the first intercontinental ballistic vehicle in 1956. 26 Subsequently, the Soviets also put Sputnik-1 rocket 1 into orbit in 1957 and a vehicle carrying Lieutenant Yuri Gagarinon on 12 April 1961, making him the first man to travel in outer space. Not surprisingly, it is reported that Soviet space-launching vehicles were developed from ballistic missiles or ballistic missile programmes. 27 Table 1.1 lists some of the the Soviet-Russian BM missiles which are closely linked to space-launcher development, while Table I.1.2 summarizes some of the technical characteristics of major Soviet-Russian space launchers. A careful look at both these tables reveals a number of similarities between other missiles and space boosters.
The Sputnik space booster which first orbited on 4 October 1957 is said to have been converted from the SS-6 Sapwood BM, which had itself been successfully test launched on 3 August of the same year. 28 Among such launchers still in operation in the mid to late 1990s was the Lance series (e.g., Molnya and Kosmos have largely derived from the SS-5), which is propelled with liquid-fuel motors and usually employed for low- to mid-altitude orbits. 29 The three-stage Tsyklon space launcher is another operational space launcher which is said to derive from the SS-9 and SS-18 families. 30 SS-9 BMs have been reported as being the booster for the FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) which, in the event of hostilities, could deliver warheads against the United States on a south polar orbit. 31 There are few Soviet-built non-military-derived space launchers and in fact the only such vehicles that are still operational derive from the heavy-lift Proton rocket family. 32 Proton rockets, in particular the D-1-e version, were the cornerstone of Soviet geostationary launches and still are for the Russian Federation. In addition to the Proton, the Zenit and the Energiya may also have their origins in designs for civil rocketry. Their development, however, is believed to have received much support from the military. In the beginning, Zenit was intended to be both a satellite launcher and a strap-on booster for the Energiya system.
The new relationship between Russia and the USA in strategic matters has stimulated the recycling of certain major missiles and their launching modes. For example, some decommissioned versions of BMs, or parts thereof, are being redesigned for use in sounding rocket campaigns or satellite launching. One initiative is the development of a mobile booster for low-mass launches using the Soviet SS-20 missile. 33 In addition, the US/Soviet START I and II agreements include provision for the use of ICBMs and SLBMs for civil launches. In this connection Russia has shown particular interest in using SS-18, SS-19, SS-24, and SS-25 ICBMs as heavy-lift vehicles. A modified SS-19 ICBM was reportedly tested for its commercial applications potential on 20 December 1991. 34 The first so-called "demonstration flight" of a converted rocket carrying a satellite was reportedly made on 23 March 1993. 35 More recently, a number of proposals have included the use of submarine-launched BMs as space boosters (e.g., SS-N-8 "Swafly" launched from a Delta-1 submarine, the SS-N-18 "Stingray" launched from the Delta-3 class submarine, and the SS-N-20 "Sturgeon" and SS-N-25 "Skiff" launched from the Delta-4 class submarine). 36
Another configuration, the "Volna" space launcher, was derived from the SS-N-18 missile and was intended to be commercialised in 1990s. 37 The "Shtil" rocket family (1, 2, and 3) derives from the SS-N-23 missile and was also intended to be commercially available as of 1995 38 By the mid-to-late 1990s, over 200 "Pioneer" rockets (SS-20) and close to 60 "Start" (SS-25) have reportedly been launched, some of them unsuccessfully. 39
In regard to air-launched missiles, the SS-24 "Scalpel" missile technology is said to be the basis of a new space launcher called "Space Clipper", which will be launched from a Russian An-124SC Ruslan aircraft. 40 Demonstration flights of some of these new space-launch vehicles - the SS-N-20 "Sturgeon" code-named Surf as a space launcher and the Space Clipper-- were reportedly expected during the course of 1994, 41 but the open literature has carried little about these programmes since the early 1990s.
EtSC= Established Space-Competent States; ..= Data unavailable. *= Fixed system; **= Road mobile system; ***= Rail-mobile system.
Source: Data compiled by the author partially in light of information in Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, Robert S. Noris, and Milton M. Hoeing, US Nuclear Warhead Production Volume II, Nuclear Weapons Databook, National Resources Defense Council, Cambridge: Ballinger, 1987, pp. 17-19; Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, Robert S. Noris, and Jeffrey I. Sands, Soviet Nuclear Weapons, Volume IV, Nuclear Weapons Databook, National Resources Defense Council, New York: Harper & Row, Ballinger Division, 1989, pp. 2-19; Philips S. Clark, "Converting Soviet Missiles into Russian Space Launchers," Jane's Intelligence Review, September 1993, pp. 401-04; World Armaments and Disarmament SIPRI Yearbook 1972, SIPRI, Almqvist & Wiksell: Stockholm, 1972, pp. 4-5, 22; and others.
Under the designation of "Shtil-3A" and launched from a pre-equipped AN-124 aircraft, an SS-N-23 missile-derived rocket is under development and expected to be commercialized by 1999 at the latest. 42 The creation of another air-launched vehicle is also underway. R&D is also moving on the "Rif-MA" space launcher, which uses the SS-N-20 missile as the basis for a rocket to be launched by the AN-225 aircraft.
Another new launch vehicle, named "Prioboy", is the Prioboy-1 version. In contrast to the new submarine- and air-launched rockets referred to above, Prioboy-1 is land-launched. It is a combination of different stages of ballistic missiles (SS-N-20) and the new Shtil-3 (SS-N-23) space launcher.
As in the case of the Soviet Union, the origin of the American outer space research and development received strong support from the defense sector. Research by the Department of Defense (DoD) dates from the post-World War II period, gaining momentum in 1955 and again in the late 1950s following the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik-1. 43 The history of US space launchers, of which one of the first rockets was the Vanguard vehicle launched in 1958, 44 is also closely related to America's development of medium- and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles. 45
The first American ICBM to become operational came from the Atlas family of missiles in October 1959, followed by the Titan I family of delivery vehicles in April 1962. 46 Apparently, the only non-reusable space launcher that did not derive from a military programme is the Saturn rocket family, the production of which was abandoned in 1975. Five major families of rockets are still operational: the Atlas, Delta, Pegasus, Scout, and Titan (see Table I.2.1). Most of these space launchers are available in two versions: military (for American use) and civil (for American and international markets). For example, American Titan-II and IV missiles are used as military launchers to place military satellites into orbit.
Photo I.2.5: Delta II (US) [non disponible]
Among American commercial rockets is the air-launched Pegasus space launch booster, developed by Orbital Sciences Corp and Hercules Aerospace Company, although the booster was sponsored by the Defence Advanced Research Agency (DARPA). The Pegasus booster is attached to and launched from underneath the wing of a B-52 aircraft. Due to the sigh and launching of this rocket, Pegasus is only capable of launching small satellites into low Earth orbits (see Photo I.2.7). The first test flight of the Pegasus launcher was conducted successfully on 5 April 1990 (see Photo I.2.8).
Photo I.2.7: Pegasus Space Launcher (US) [non disponible]
Photo I.2.10: Trident II (D-5) Missile Test Launch at Sea (US) [non disponible]
Courtesy of the US DoDPhoto I.2.11: Peacekeeper Missile in its Silo (US) [non disponible]
Courtesy of the US DoDThe outer-space competence of the USA and the Russian Federation is such that they are the only countries to have successfully accomplished manned missions to the moon. They have also been successful in establishing and maintaining space stations in Earth orbit, particularly the Soviet Union's operation of the MIR station (see Photo I.2.12). In rocketry, they have developed different types of expandable space launchers as well as space shuttles. The Soviet placement of heavy loads in low orbit, Energiya, made it possible to launch the disassembled parts of a space station and the now suspended unmanned space shuttle Buran. 47 The latest generation of American space launchers is the reusable Space Transportation System, which includes the manned Space Shuttle (see Photo I.2.14). In contrast to its Russian counterpart, the Space Shuttle has been operational for almost two decades.
Eo= Equatorial orbit; Go= Geostationary orbit; Ho= Helio-synchronous orbit; Lo= Low orbit; Po= Prognoz orbit; POLo= Polar orbit; Se= Semi-synchronous Elliptical Orbit; SCEs= Space-Competent States; SL= Space Launcher; Ss= Sun-synchronous orbit; SSV= Space Shuttle Vehicle; STS= Space Transportation System; To= Transfer orbit (Moon, Venus, Mars, or Deep space); ..= Data unavailable.
Source= Data compiled by the author partly in the light of information given in Roger Stanyard, World Satellite Survey, London, Lloyd's Aviation Department, 1987; Atlas de Géographie de L'espace. Sous la direction de Fernand Verger, Sides-Reclus, 1992, pp. 75, 81; Nicholas L. Johnson (ed.), The Soviet Year in Space: 1990, Colorado Springs: Teledyne Brown Engineering, 1991; Salvatori, Nicoletta, "Così un Sogno ha Potuto Mettere le Ali," Airone Spazio, Numero Speciale, n°. 120, Aprile 1991, pp. 109-21; Igor I. Velichko, Nikolai A. Obukhov, Georgy G. Sity, et al. "Launch Vehicles Using Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles Technologies," Space Bulletin, Vol. 2, N° 1, 1995, pp. 24-26, op. cit; and others.
R&D is also in progress to explore other, more-advanced types of reusable space transportation systems. New concepts and alternatives in space shuttles seek the development of regularly reusable vehicles, especially for low-orbit satellite launching. One case in point is the case of the Delta Clipper (DC-X) rocket concept initiated by DoD and now being tested by NASA (see Photo I.2.15), although it will be several years before such a system can be commercialized. 48 Other technology developments include work being done on the HL-20, a Personnel Launch System (PLS). HL-20 is a small space vehicle designed to transport up to 10 astronauts and small cargo to and from low Earth orbit (see Photo I.2.16). HL-20 is expected to be launched and landed much in the same way as the present Space Shuttle, but is a smaller vehicle minimizing both maintenance and cost. Other R&D worth noting here is the planned joint programme for a space station, supported by the USA, Russia, and a few other EtSC States, which the end of the Cold War and the reassessment of relationships and space programmes has now made feasible proposition.
Photo I.2.16: R&D on Space Vehicles (USA) a. PLS Experiment [non disponible]
| From left: the Rockwell wing body 7, the McDonnell Douglas Vertical Landing and the Lockheed Martin Lifting Body configuration. |
However, the Soviet space programme had been beset by financial and other problems since the mid-1980s. The dismantling of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to a fragmentation of its space institutions and industries, throwing a shadow on the future of Russian activities in outer space. 49 The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) has inherited the space capabilities of the former USSR, but the questionable stability of the CIS presupposes further dismantling of its space capabilities and an overall decrease in space activities. 50 Although this fragmentation is still continuing, 51 it seems safe to state that the Russian Federation's defence and space agencies have inherited most of the former Soviet capabilities in terms of outer space, BMs, Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) facilities, detection/tracking and launching sites, manufacturing capabilities and human resources. 52 Since the early 1990s, intensive rethinking on better utilization of space resources for both military and civil industries has guided the restructuring of Russia's space activities. 53
For example, of the three major launch sites and a few other test ranges from which the former Soviet Union operated its launch vehicles, two are located in the Russian Federation: the North Cosmodrome (originally Plesetsk) in the northwestern part of the Federation facing the Nordic states and the Kapustin Yar near the Volga River and city of the same name. Not all of the three launching sites were constructed as such, but they are usually identified as having been used as military bases for the launching of medium and/or intercontinental-range ballistic missiles. One of three Over-The-Horizon-Backscatters (OTH-B) near Nikolayevsk-na-Amur and a few of the eight long-range early-warning ABM-associated phased-array radars remain on Russian territory, as well as all of the eleven Hen-House series radars and the Pillbox phased-array radars. 54 Nevertheless, it should be noted that some key early-warning and space launch facilities, as well as manufacturing capabilities, are located in other former Soviet Republics. During a transitional period, facilities for strategic deterrent forces were reported in Western literature to be under CIS control, 55 although some analysts found it to be doubtful. At the same time, it was also reported that Belarus, Kazakstan, and the Ukraine had joint control of former Soviet strategic weapons and other devices located in their respective territories.
The Ukraine reportedly has two OTH-B radars (near Kiev and Komsomolsk) and one ABM-associated phased-array (near Mukachevo). 56 In addition, it has major manufacturing facilities for space launchers (the Tsiklon and the Zenit rockets), as well as electronic intelligence and early-warning application satellites and radars, of which the naval EORSAT spacecraft is more developed than others. 57 Kazakhstan has inherited the Baiconur Cosmodrome--renamed the Tyuratam Cosmodrome --situated east of the Aral Sea near the city of Leninsk in Central Asia, as well as the long-range phased-array Sary Shagan radar. 58 For its part, Belarus is known to possess manufacturing facilities for early-warning radars in the city of Gomel. 59 Different manufacturing capabilities are therefore spread-out in these three territories, none of which seems to possess a combination of satellites and ground launching/tracking facilities, although the Ukraine may be an exception. However, all of these independent republics have had different missiles (such as the SS-18, SS-19, SS-24, and SS-25) which could be converted into space launchers after some modification. However, given their respective stockpile, conversion, operation, and satellite assembly requirements, this option seems to be realistic only in the case of the Russian Federation.
Unlike the Soviet programme, American activity has progressed. NASA has access to space-launch sites in both the continental United States and elsewhere. The biggest of these sites is Cape Canaveral, in Florida, which contains, among other things, a US Air Force base and the Kennedy Space Center. In California, NASA operates space launch/return flights from the Vanderberg and Edwards Air Force Bases. Vanderberg Air Force Base is used as a launch site, while Edwards AFB is used in conjunction with the Kennedy Space Center for the landing of the space shuttle. NASA also operates the Wallops Space Center located on Wallops Island in Virginia which, along with the Kennedy Space Center, is known primarily to operate sounding rocket launches. 60
In terms of dual-use tracking capabilities, the United States has developed a worldwide array of antennae and radars. 61 Among these are the ballistic missile early-warning systems in Alaska (Clear), Greenland (Thule), and the UK (Fylingdales Moor). Its radar at Fylingdales Moor, for example, has the primary task of providing early-warning of ICBMs and SLBMs and the secondary task of space surveillance. Thus, it plays an integral role in American satellite tracking capabilities. 62 In addition, ground-based phased-array radars and systems such as the Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS) (Cavalier, North Dakota) and the PAVE PAWS radar (Massachusetts) are operated. Other space tracking radars include sites in Turkey (Pirinçlik) and Florida (Eglin); optical tracking systems in New Mexico, South Korea (Choejong-San), Italy (San Vito), Hawaii (Maui), and the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia). Furthermore, the Ground-based, Electron-Optical Deep Space Surveillance System (GEODSS) operates in New Mexico (Socorro), South Korea (Taegu), Hawaii (Maui), and the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia). The USA also operates three transmitting and six receiving stations for space surveillance in southeastern America as well as a number of other detection and tracking radars worldwide some of whose data could have dual-use - e.g., in the Pacific (Kwajalein Atoll), Atlantic (Ascending Island), Caribbean (Antigua), Hawaii (Kaena Point), and in Massachusetts (MIT Lincoln Laboratory).
EtSC States in Category II have achieved considerable outer-space competence and are known as being well-established equipment, technology, and service supplier States. Indeed, the Soviet Union and the USA were not the only countries engaged in launching-vehicles R&D in the 1950s. One such country was China, which is known to have undertaken R&D on missiles modelled on foreign sources in the late 1950s--reportedly with Soviet technological assistance and some knowledge of the US missile programme. 63 Rocketry research, for instance, began in 1957 at the First Subacademy of the Fifth Academy of the Ministry of Defence. The China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) was established that year. In February 1960, the Chinese successfully launched their first sounding rocket. The T-7M, a small liquid-propellant rocket designed by the Shanghai Institute of Machine and Electricity of the Chinese Academy of Science, was followed in September of the same year by the "... first application type liquid meteorological rocket--the T-7.". Only a month later, the first Chinese short-range rocket was launched. After a series of small- and medium-sized rocket launches during the 1960s, 64 there was a preliminary intercontinental rocket launch in the early 1970s, but it was not until May 1980, nine years later, that the first full-range launch of this kind took place. 65
In civil activities, Chinese space launchers are indigenously-built. 66 The first generation, designated Chang Zheng (CZ) and also known as Long March (LM) rockets, placed China's first satellite into space in April 1970. 67 Since then, CZ rockets have evolved considerably. The CZ family, designed and produced by the Beijing Wanyaun Corporation, consists of three series of rockets (the CZ-1, 2, and 3), each series having different versions. The CZ-1 rocket was demonstrated in 1965, but came into service only in 1970. In 1974, a new CZ-2 two-stage liquid-fuel rocket series was put into service with the first and only launch of the CZ-2A. About two-thirds of China's launches from 1970 to 1990 were directed to low orbits, and the CZ-2C version has been used for 75% of these launches. A new rocket, the CZ-2E, was launched in July 1990, and both CZ-2 versions were still operational in 1994. CZ-2E is also a two-stage liquid-fuel rocket, but it has four additional strap-on motors designed to lift heavy and voluminous object into low orbit (see Photo I.2.17). 68
Geostationary orbit launches are effected with follow-on CZ-3 and CZ-4 rocket. CZ-3 rockets were put in service in 1984 and have been used for all subsequent launches to geostationary orbit, with the exception of the 1988 and 1990 CZ-4 launches. 69 In fact, the CZ-4 no longer appears in the CALT catalogue of launchers and the CZ-3 would appear to be the only high-orbit option available. However, China is planning to quadruple its satellite delivery capacity to geostationary orbits by developing two heavy-lift launchers, the CZ-3A and the CZ-2E/HO. Both have a three-stage body structure with liquid and cryogenic propulsion motors and both were marketed in 1994.
Photo I.2.17: CZ-2E Space Launch (China) [non disponible]
Courtesy of CALTLike China, France has been active in outer space since the end of the 1940s. Rocketry research started in 1949, the year that the Véronique sounding-rocket first appeared. Construction of 15 AGI (International Geophysical Year) rockets was subsidized by the National Defence Scientific Steering Committee (CASDN) and the work was carried out by the Ballistic and Aerodynamics Laboratory at Vernon. French sounding-rocket activity began in March 1959; 70 three Véronique rockets were launched that year, eleven in 1960, and eight in 1961. These were followed by two Bélier and seven Centaure rockets in 1961, and in December of that year France decided to develop space launchers.
Initially, research may have been oriented more to military requirements than to sounding rockets proper. France produced the Diamant space launcher, using technology originally designed for ground-to-ground ballistic systems--the Agate, Emeraude, Rubis, Saphir, and Topaze missiles. 71 Diamant launchers were constructed by the National Centre for Space Studies (CNES) and the Ministerial Armaments Delegation (DMA), via the transformation of the Saphir missile, with work undertaken by the Society for the Study and the Realization of Ballistic Vehicles (SEREB). The Diamant-A launcher was launched on 26 November 1965 from Hammaguir in the western Algerian Sahara, when it placed the 40 kg Astérix-1 satellite into orbit. 72 The Diamant-A successfully placed three other satellites (Diapason-1A in 1966 and Diadème 1 and 2 in 1967) from the same launch-site. France then decided, on 30 June 1967, to construct an improved version, the Diamant-B. Three years later, in March 1970, Diamant-B placed its first satellite into orbit--the German Wika satellite from the French Centre Spatial Guyanais French Guyana Space Centre (CSG), near the city of Kourou in Guyana. 73 Diamant-B made two other successful flights but ran into difficulty during its fourth and fifth flights in December 1971 and May 1973, respectively. The Diamant programme was formally abandoned on 14 December 1974, although work continued on a new version, the Diamant-BP4, which successfully achieved three launches in 1975.
However, having terminated its independent launch-vehicle programme, France then directed its manufacturing capabilities to the creation of ESA's space launcher family. 74 It was only in the early 1990s, with the emerging need for low-cost launch vehicles, that French companies decided to create a new, comprehensive space-launching system. Reportedly, Aerospatiale is developing the ESL, which is a three-stage rocket capable of carrying satellites weighing up to 1,200 kg to an altitude of 550 km in polar orbit. ESL will probably operate out of the CSG and to be marketed shortly after the year 2000.
The United Kingdom has an equally long involvement in rocketry and satellite R&D. 75 It developed the Skylark sounding rocket in the 1960s and its work on space launchers is linked to military programmes. For example, the Black Arrow space launcher (produced in the mid-1960s) is said to have derived from a mix of the Black Knight missile and the Skylark. 76 The Black Arrow was reportedly abandoned in the early 1970s after three launch failures, 77 and since then the United Kingdom has not pursued any further space-launch development.
All three of the EtSC Level-II States mentioned above -- China, France and the United Kingdom -- possess BMs (see Table I.2.3), and BM R&D has played an important role in their space-launcher research. The CSS-2 Chinese BM, which belongs to the present generation of CSS ground-based missiles, became operational in the same year as the CZ-1 space launcher - 1970. 78 The CSS-3 and CSS-4 BMs became operational in 1978/79, the CSS-4 in 1981, and a submarine-launched BM, the CSS-N-3, in 1983/84. 79 With the exception of the CSS-4, all of these BMs have low Earth orbit capabilities. Reports indicate that two new missiles are under development: (1) a ground-based solid-propellant--the CSS-X-5, and (2) a SLBM--the CSS-NX-4. 80
In the area of early-warning BMs, China reportedly uses two tracking-station sites associated with phased-array radar complexes: the Xichang Satellite Launch Centre, which reportedly covers Central Asia, and the Shanxi site which is said to cover the northern border. 81 It is interesting to note that all of these sites are also used as China's three official space-booster sites.
France, which achieved rocket launch capability in the mid-1960s, has continued to develop its BM capability. Its S-3D IRBM came into service in 1980 and is still operational. A new missile, the M5-S5, has been approved either as a new system or to replace the S-3D in the future. 82 Similarly to China, France's SLBM BM, the M-4, came into service after its ground-based counterpart - in 1985. 83 Little has appeared in the open literature on France's ground-based early-warning BM capability. It is known, however, that such capability has been mounted in the Henri Poincaré and the Le Monge. This is not surprising since the submarine section of the French nuclear forces is the pillar of its deterrence posture. After the Hammaguir launch-site was closed-down, France set up another launch-site at Kourou, where the ESA launches are carried out. 84
EtSC= Established Space-Competent States; ð= Confirmed forthcoming deployment; ð= Probable forthcoming deployment; ..= Data unavailable.
Source= Data compiled by the author partly from information given in Trident: Thirty Years of the Polaris Sales Agreement, Chief Strategic Systems Executive, United Kingdom: Crown -, May 1993; World Armaments and Disarmament, SIPRI Yearbook 1972, SIPRI, Almqvist & Wiksell: Stockholm, 1972; Ballistic Missile Proliferation: An Emerging Threat, 1992, Arlington: System Planning Corporation, 1992; and others.
In contrast to China and France, the United Kingdom does not manufacture ground-based or submarine-launched BMs. The present generation of British BMs consists of the American-supplied Polaris missile family, first put into service in 1967, and a new family of missiles, the Trident II D5, is expected to become operational still in the 1990s. 85 The United Kingdom does not possess an adequately instrumented test-range for the tracking and telemetry of its BMs. Polaris and Trident test launches are therefore carried out in the USA at the Eastern Range off the coast of Florida. Since the UK does not have a space-launch centre, 86 early-warning BMs are carried out on its behalf through the American radar installation at the Fylingdales Moor site.
Other EtSC States whose technological know-how has not been directly derived from BMs are Japan and ESA countries such as Germany, Norway, and Sweden. ESA and its subcontracting companies have become important rocketry participants.
As regards Japan, its activity in space is overseen by the Space Activities Commission (SAC). 87 It is entrusted with a number of institutions, two of which merit special mention here: the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) 88 operating under the Ministry of Education (MOE), and the National Space Development Agency (NASDA), 89 which is an executive organization linked to the Science and Technology Agency (STA), the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (MOPT), and the Ministry of Transport (MOT).
ISAS is an inter-university research institute whose brief is to conduct and supervise research on sounding rockets, satellite launchers, scientific satellites, planetary probes, and scientific balloons. It also operates solid-fuel sounding rockets and space launchers. Its sounding-rocket experiments which began in the late 1950s have included the Kappa, Lambda, and S rocket series. 90 Most of ISAS's launches in the 1970s and 1980s were undertaken by the Mu, a three-stage rocket (with an optional fourth stage) using solid propellants in every stage (see Photo I.2.20). ISAS's next generation of rockets, the M-Vs resemble their predecessors in that they have three stages and use solid fuel. However, their lift-off capacity to low orbit will be more than double.
NASDA's role is to develop, launch and track rockets and satellites rather than to operate educational programmes. NASDA's space launcher capability sprang from American Thor-Delta rocket technology: a three-stage rocket, called the N series, which was manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry in Japan. 91 The first and third stages of the N-1 series used American know-how, but the second stage was developed in Japan. The rocket was propelled by both liquid and solid fuel American motors. First launched in September 1975, the N-I remained operational until 1982. A second version, the N-II, was used for launches from 1980 to 1986. The origin of the technology changed however; the N-II's first stage and strap-on boosters were produced, under US licence, in Japan, while the second stage came from American Thor-Delta technology. The N series successfully placed 15 satellites into geostationary and other orbits.
The second generation of NASDA rockets is called the H series and, like the N series, they use combined American/Japanese technology. Lift-off capacity was considerably improved, but the first stage and the strap-on boosters were the same as the N-IIs. However, other major sub-systems such as a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engine (LE-5), a third-stage solid rocket motor, and an improved internal guidance system are said to be products of NASDA technology. 92 This series was discontinued after the H-I rocket launch in early 1992. H series rockets have launched nine satellites, all successfully. The H-II follow-up version, was first used in September 1988 for flight tests and initiated regular flight on 4 February 1994, placing a Vehicle Evaluation Pay-load (VAP) spacecraft into an elliptical orbit and deploying the Orbital Re-entry Experiment (OREX) in circular orbit.
NASDA's H-II rocket is entirely indigenously built. The launcher is lifted beyond the Earth's gravitational pull by a new liquid hydrogen/oxygen engine (LE-7), and two solid rocket boosters. It is propelled further into outer space by two liquid-fuelled stages. With increased thrust and accuracy, the H-II rocket was built not only to launch high-capacity satellites, but also to lift the future Japanese space minishuttle-- H-II Orbiting Plane (HOPE)--in the early 2000s (see Figure I.2.3).
ISAS and NASDA do not operate from the same launch pad, despite the fact that they conduct only two launches each a year by agreement with the fishing industry. ISAS uses the Kagoshima Space Centre (KSC) located in Uchinoura-cho on Kyushu Island, off the coast of the Ohsumi Peninsula. 93 NASDA's space launchers lift off from Tanegashima Space Centre 94 on Tanegashima Island, 115 km south of the city of Kagoshima.
Three other EtSC States have known rocketry capability. For example, in the mid-1970s, research undertaken by the German Space Agency (DARA), under the German Ministry of Research and Technology, 95 focused on sounding rocket manufacturing capabilities. 96 ERNO Raumfahrttechnik GmbH 97 took over the management of sounding-rocket programmes, developing, among others, the TEXUS sounding rocket, which is an exo-atmospheric rocket capable of carrying 250 kg of scientific experiments with a microgravity time of 6-7 minutes. In the late 1980s, ERNO also joined forces with the Swedish Space Corporation (SSC) to develop an even more powerful vehicle, 98 which resulted in the MAXUS sounding rocket (see Figure I.2.4). This uses a Castor IVB motor -- adapted from the American strap-on booster for the Delta II satellite launch vehicle -- and has more than twice the capability of the TEXUS. MAXUS can carry up to almost half a ton of scientific experiments in eight separate sections of its scientific payload-bay. It is available on the international market and has often been used by the ESA.
Sweden has also produced the MASER, an exo-atmospheric rocket which has technically similar features to the TEXUS. 99 MASER can carry 250 kg of scientific experiments to an altitude of just under 300 km and has a microgravity time of 6-7 minutes. The Swedish space programme has concentrated on the launching of sounding rockets and the operation of satellite ground-stations. Thus, in addition to the MAXUS and the MASER, Sweden has also launched sounding rockets from several other countries and stratospheric balloons from the ESRANGE site in northern Sweden, near Kiruna. 100
Norway is another Scandinavian country with an active launch programme. 101 The Royal Norwegian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (NTNF) was established in January 1960 to promote sounding-rocket R&D. The creation of the Space Activity Division (SAD) within its ranks took place in 1965, but in June 1987 SAD was replaced by the Norwegian Space Centre (NSC). 102 Because of its geographical location, Norway has a long rocket history, the first launch being a Nike/Cajun rocket in August 1962; by the end of 1991, a total of 559 sounding rockets had been launched. 103 The NSC operates the Andøya Rocket Range (ARR) which has been used, under the ESA's special project arrangement, for rocketry programmes since 1972. In addition, the NSC also enables the Tromsø Satellite Station (TSS) in Tromsø to receive data from polar orbiting satellites.
Italy has also been very active in rocketry since 1960, when Italy initiated both scientific research and a sounding-rocket programme. 104 This was followed, in 1962, by a co-operative programme between the Aerospace Research Centre of the University of Rome and NASA, for the development of a series of scientific satellites and launching capabilities. 105 This programme produced the first Italian satellite, the San Marco, which was launched in 1964 by a Scout vehicle. The programme also developed the San Marco range facility over two sea platforms. The range is located about 150 km miles north of Mombasa (Kenya), and consists of the San Marco Launching Pad and the Santa Rita Control Centre which are used to launch low equatorial orbit satellites. 106 However, it was only in 1979 that a National Space Plan (NSP) was created to promote outer space activities. In 1988, the Italian Space Agency (ASI) was established under the Ministry for the Universities and Science and Technology (MURST) to co-ordinate and manage NSP and Italian scientific and industrial participation in ESA and other international programmes. 107
Like Germany, Italy is much involved in the ESA's development of a space station module. For example, it is working on two Mini Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLMs) for the transportation of user payloads and re-supply missions for the international space station. In addition, the Italian firm BPD has developed two generations of solid strap-on boosters for the European space launcher and a third generation of such boosters is being developed in co-operation with SEP, the French firm. 108 The Italians also produce qualified outer-space components for the American Space Shuttle such as the apogee motor--the solid-fuel Italian Research Interim Stage (IRIS). IRIS is also believed to be under study for possible use as a component for the third stage of the Chinese CZ-1M and other rockets. 109
BPD has also initiated a feasibility analysis of the VEGA family of launch vehicles, 110 that could eventually include three different rocket versions: Capricornio BPD alternative, VEGA KO, and the VEGA K. VEGA vehicles are designed to carry satellites between 300 and 680 kg to various altitudes in low-Earth orbit (up to 550 km polar orbit). Furthermore, BPD has also, under joint Spanish/Italian industrial arrangements, proposed a specific vehicle configuration in the Spanish Capricornio launcher which is designed to carry spacecraft of up to 135 kg to 550 km polar orbit. While the BPD proposal would not increase this capability, it would provide an opportunity to utilize the company's new ZEFIRO rocket engine--a proposal that is reportedly also to be made to Aerospatiale for its new ELS vehicle.
Most of the outer space technologies competence of the majority of Level II EtSC States are employed at ESA and ARIANESPACE. ESA regrouped the R&D work undertaken by its predecessors: the European Launcher Development Organization (ELDO) and the European Space Research Organization (ESRO). 111 ESRO developed sounding rockets (see Photo I.2.24) while ELDO developed Europe I and Europe II in the Europe rocket series between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s (see Photo I.2.25). 112 The Europe series launcher was a three-stage rocket combining mainly British (Black Knight), French (Diamant and Véronique), and German (third stage cryogenic propulsion) rocket technologies. A series of three flight tests of Europe I-F1 and F2 were made in 1964, all of them unsuccessfully.
Photo I.2.25: Europe I Space Launcher (ELDO) [non disponible]
Courtesy of ESAThe next series, Europe II, was reportedly a modified version of its predecessor and basically designed for geostationary launches. 113 This series also failed, the last configuration tested being the Europe II-F11 rocket in 1971. Work on the subsequent Europe-III version was terminated on 30 April 1973 and one year later ELDO was dissolved. Despite this decision, ELDO had provided European countries with much experience in rocket technology. As a matter of fact, the present Ariane rocket series 114 (see Table .2.4) employed by ARIANESPACE 115 from the French launch-site at Kourou, originates in part from research on the Europe-III rocket initiated under ELDO and continued by ESRO.
Ariane 1 was first flown in December 1979 and the series has progressively evolved since then (see Figure I.2.5). The present rocket -- the Ariane 4 -- has solid/liquid/cryogenic-fuelled motors depending on which of its six versions is used to launch satellites for low and geostationary orbits. The next rocket in the series is expected to be a new generation vehicle with a radically different architecture. 116 Ariane 5 is expected to be capable of launching two large, or three smaller, satellites per launch when fully operational (see Figure I.2.6). Although its planned development was canceled, one other variation contemplated was the Ariane 5 HERMES, originally designed to place the now defunct European space shuttle, HERMES, into orbit. In addition, the first certification flight by Ariane 5, on 4 June 1996, was unsuccessful, but other follow on flights confirmed the vehicle's expected technological capabilities.
¶= Joint venture between the ERNO Raumfahrttechnik GmbH and the Swedish Space Corporation (SSC); ¶¶= F1 to F9 and G1 to G2 versions; ¶¶¶= Proposed BPD alternative; CZ= Chang Zheng or Long March; FB= Feng Bao or Storm; Go= Geostationary orbit; Eo= Equatorial orbit; Ho= Helio-synchronous orbit; Lo= Low orbit; Mo= Molnya orbit; Po= Prognoz orbit; POLo= Polar orbit; EtSC= Established Space-Competent States; To= Transfer orbit (Moon, Venus, Mars, or Deep space); ..= Data unavailable.
Sources = Data compiled by the author partly on the basis of information given in China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, CALT, Beijing, 1991; Yang Chunfu, "China's LONG MARCH Series Carrier Rockets", Military World, May 1989, pp. 20-25; Atlas de Géographie de L'Espace. Sous la direction de Fernand Verger, Sides-Reclus, 1992, p. 81; "National Space Development Agency of Japan", NASDA Brochure, Japan, 1991; "National Space Development Agency of Japan", NASDA Brochure, Japan, 1992; Space in Japan: 1992, Research and Development Bureau, Science and Technology Agency, Keidanren, 1992, pp. 21-22; "Japanese National Report submitted to the Twenty-First Plenary Meeting of the ICSU Committee on Space Research", Japan, 1990; Institute of Space and Astronautical Science Activities, Japan, 1990; Microgravity MAXUS Brochure, Swedish Space Corporation; The European Space Agency, European Space Agency, Public Relations Division, Paris, June, 1992; "A European Success Story", 50th Launch Special, Ariane, European Space Agency, April 1992; Hermes, European Space Agency, ESA D/STS/H, May, 1991; ARIANESPACE: The World's First Commercial Space Transportation Company, ARIANESPACE, Evry, 1991; Balduccini, M., "BPD Hardware Development to Support Low Cost Missions", ESA Round-Table on "Space 2020', European Space Research and Technical Centre, European Space Agency, Noordwij, The Netherlands, 27-29 June 1995 and others.Information compiled in the open literature show that EtSC Level I and Level II States have made 3,395 successful space launches between the beginning of the space era and 1991. 117 (No such record seems to have been published after 1991. Despite this lack of available date, the information which follows is still pertinent, if only because it reflects most of the period of the space era.) As illustrated in Graph I.2.1, 2,315 of the launches (over 68%) for the period that data is available were conducted by the USSR, which made 80-100 launches a year between 1970 and 1978. Its successor, the Russian Federation, continues to be fairly active in space, despite some cutbacks overall. During the same period, the USA conducted 953 launches, or just over 28% of the total. No other State achieved successful triple-digit or double-digit figures per year.
For example, the Japanese and the European programmes, which recorded the third highest successful figures during the same period, undertook only 43 operations each, or a little under 1.3% of the total. It should be noted, however, that Japan initiated operations only in 1970 and Europe in 1979. China conducted 29 launches, while the individual figures for Australia, France, and the United Kingdom were, respectively, 1, 10 and 1, making a joint total of 12 in all. 118
2. Space-Based Devices
The impressive record of development in the manufacture and operation of ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles discussed above is also indicative of the ability of the EtSC States to develop a number of other space-based devices. This is true for civil applications of artificial satellites, but also for their military uses. Dedicated and non-dedicated military satellites have played an important role in military preparedness and real-time battlefield operations for many of these States since the early 1960s. 119
As is the case for space launchers and ballistic missiles, the Soviet Union and the USA were the first to operate an array of satellites for different military applications. In photo reconnaissance, for example, experts generally believe that Russian space-based sensors have very high spatial resolution--in the order of centimetres. However, even today, there is little actually available in the open literature concerning Russian satellite application development--be it photo reconnaissance, early warning, or other military-related spacecraft. At time of writing, about six different types of cameras are believed to provide Russia with images from 300 m to less than 1 metre resolution in the Cosmos, Resurs, and other spacecraft configurations. The Resurs configuration provides images by collecting the data and returning the film back to Earth in the spacecraft which is then overhauled and re-used. These spacecraft are placed at altitudes of about 250 km into near-circular and near-polar orbits and usually have a very short life-span: about five Resurs spacecraft are launched annually. 120 Reportedly, Russia is now operating the newest (fifth or sixth generation) reconnaissance spacecraft of the NIKA satellite family. 121
There are more data on American military activity - for example, the KH [Key-Hole], Magnum, White Cloud and other satellites. KH satellites were launched in classified reconnaissance programmes such as the CORONA (August 1960), ARGON (May 1962) and LANYARD (July 1963). Images from the CORONA programme, including photos of cameras and the re-entry vehicle, were recently declassified, thus publicly revealing the development status of American reconnaissance spacecraft at the time. 122 For example, the KH-11 series has a ground resolution of 15.24 cm and is equipped with IR night-capable devices.
A more advanced series, the KH-11+/KH-12, has thermal-imaging and light-enhancement capabilities enabling night pictures to be taken, instant transmission imaging, and refuelling capability. The resolution of this series is suspected to be better than 15.24 cm. Other types of satellite are radar-imaging spacecraft, one example being the Lacrosse series which carries night/cloud cover-capable devices with reported ground resolutions of 60 cm to 3 m. As for navigation satellites, NAVSTAR is completely operational with a constellation of 24 spacecraft. The NAVSTAR--Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) provides navigation and positioning data to both military forces and the public civilian market worldwide. 123
Incentives to reach greater degrees of independence in outer space matters have also motivated other countries to develop their own space-based devices and most, if not all, Level II EtSC States have been able to produce different kinds of satellites for different applications although only a handful of these concern dedicated and non-dedicated military systems. One such country, however, is China. Satellite activities began in 1958 with the support of the military stimulating R&D 124 -- for example, the initiatives taken by the Fifth Research Academy of the Ministry of National Defence, which was already active at the time in the development of Chinese rockets. However, it was not until 1965, following the successful launch of a middle-range surface-to-surface missile, that an official proposal to construct and launch satellites was made. After the Commission of Science and Technology for National Defence (COSTND) had organized a feasibility demonstration study and submitted a report to the Central Special Committee (CSC), the Satellite Design Institute was created in September 1965 and China's first scientific experimental satellite, the DFH-1, was designed. In early 1967 the satellite programme was delayed because the general architecture of the spacecraft had to be modified to enable the song "The East is Red" to be broadcast. Since then, China has manufactured three major categories of spacecraft--scientific experimental, remote sensors, and communications satellites, some of which have been used for military purposes.
Chinese remote-sensing satellites include Earth observation, technical experiment, and sun-synchronous orbit meteorological spacecraft. The Chinese Earth observation Fanhui Shi Weixing satellite, also known as Fanhui Shi Yao Gang Weixing, is a recoverable spacecraft. First generation satellites were launched in 1974 and, reportedly, second generation ones in 1992. 125 Like their Russian counterparts, these recoverable satellites also have a very low orbit of about 175 km for the perigee and 400 km for the apogee. They also have a short flight-life: the first generation satellites were able to stay in orbit for only 5-8 days, and their successors for 10-15 days. As of 1993, China was already working on its third generation system. Chinese remote-sensing satellites carry a visible light surface feature camera, but their spatial resolution has been kept secret. Nevertheless, in the early 1990s Chinese defence experts have indicated that China's satellites resolution levels were much better than those of civil-use satellites then. 126 This implied that Chinese sensors were able to provide data with resolutions equal to or better than 10 m. Nonetheless, if these experts were also taking Russian commercial satellite data into consideration, this meant that their imagery would be better than 2 m.
The unique nature of satellites and their environment in general, but of remote sensing spacecraft in particular, is recognized in Chinese official documents. It is also acknowledged that "... recoverable remote sensing satellites had been widely used in national defence and economic constructions." 127 In addition, Chinese military authorities supported communications satellite R&D, 31 March 1975, the Standing Committee of the Central Military Commission (CMC) approved a report on the development of a Chinese communications satellite put forward by the State Planning Commission and the COSTND. This was promptly officially endorsed. Less than a decade later, in January 1984, China's first experimental communications satellite was launched.
France took much longer than China to acquire military satellites. In photo reconnaissance, for example, France's HELIOS I spacecraft was launched by an Ariane-4 launcher on 7 April 1995. HELIOS I was a joint co-operative product between France, Italy, and Spain. 128 Although its ground resolution has not been published, some observers believe it to be in the order of 1-1.5 m. 129 It is possible that HELIOS I resolution is indeed much more than 1 m. HELIOS I provides Earth observation data for military manoeuvres and similar exercises. In addition, HELIOS I also gives France and its HELIOS partners the technological means to implement political decisions by using HELIOS data as their own NTM verification. It could also allow them to participate in selective or collective monitoring and verification of arms control and disarmament agreement as image providers.
Figure I.2.12: Artist View of HELIOS I (France) [non disponible]
Courtesy of Matra Marconi SpaceMilitary-application satellites used by Level II EtSC States also include the dual-use of satellite platforms. For example, French civilian communication satellites carry military components on board or perform military or military-related assignments. TELECOM I and II, for example, carry SYRACUSE (Système de radio-communication utilisant un satellite) I and II, which are military payloads (one-sixth of TELECOM I, and a little less than 50% for its successor). 130 The same arrangement is true for the STENTOR satellite. 131 Similarly, the SIRIO satellite has been used by the Italian Navy for mobile communications, and SICRAL, an Italian multipurpose satellite, has been used for military purposes, national public security and civilian protection. 132 For its part, the United Kingdom has also manufactured dedicated satellites such as the SKYNET, which is a form of dedicated military communications network. Reports indicate that the United Kingdom is also developing a signals intelligent satellite called Zircon. 133
Graph I.2.2: Reported Military Satellite Launches 1985-1991 [non disponible]
Intelligence = Imaging intelligence, electronic intelligence, naval intelligence, mapping and remote sensing, and weather satellites; Early-warning and Communications = Communications, navigation, and nuclear explosion detection; Satellite/Weapon Development = Ballistic missile development, ballistic missile defence, anti-tactic ballistic-missile defence, radar calibration, and geodetic; Other Missions = Space test programmes and minor military missions.
Source: Adapted from information published in the SIPRI Yearbook series (1986-1992)Some technologies have clearly been given more military priority than others during the period 1985-1991, as shown in Graph I.2.2. For this six-year period alone (for which data is available to the author), over 46% of the 700 military satellites placed in orbit were devoted to intelligence operations, with just under 42% concerning with early-warning and communications. Launches by the former USSR and the USA totaled almost 700--476 and 187, respectively - and no other country reached even double-digit launches during that period. As depicted in more detail in Graph I.2.3, the most active military applications have been intelligence imaging, representing 61.5% of all flights.
The USSR devoted over two-thirds of its military intelligence activity to imaging satellites for the six-year period mentioned above while the USA emphasized naval intelligence, although they did strike a balance between imaging, electronic intelligence satellites, and weather applications. 134 China is the only other country to have reportedly launched imaging satellites. The military intelligence satellites launched by other countries have been limited to weather devices.
In another area of activity, Graph I.2.4 shows how selective the launching of military satellites can be. It should be noted that the former USSR and the USA have launched an array of dedicated spacecraft as well as communication devices, notably early-warning and nuclear-explosion detection. To date, such devices have not been launched by any of the Level II EtSC States or EmSC States.
Graph I.2.4: Reported Early-Warning and Communications Satellite Launches 1985-1991 [non disponible]
Source: Adapted from information published in the SIPRI Yearbook series (1986-1992)The technologies acquired by Level II EtSCs States has been internationally available, to at least some extent, for years. Technology transfer mostly occurs between major EtSC States. Even on the military side, entire BM systems have been sold internationally, as in the case of the British SLBMs. However, this did not happen with transfers to and from the former Soviet Union and countries then in the Soviet bloc. Co-operation in outer space and related activities between both Level I and Level II EtSC States is expanding and yesterday's potential enemies are emerging as tomorrow's probable partners. A new approach to co-operative programmes will therefore probably reshape the nature of the relationships between EtSC States.
The priorities of the 1970s and 1980s are being revised to meet present requirements in Europe and growing financial constraints. Thus, communications (including broadcasting), observation (scientific research and Earth observation) satellites, probes for the Moon and also other planets, and man-in-space programmes involving, for example, space shuttles and permanent space stations have all been affected. A case in point is the international space station which is due to be completed in 2002 as the so- called Alpha configuration (see Figure I.2.13). 135
In spite of these fundamental changes in perspective and behaviour, it is still uncertain as to how far co-operation between EtSC and EmSC States will develop in the future. While ad hoc and selective co-operation may still be envisaged, the dual-use nature of certain outer-space activities will, to some extent, condition comprehensive co-operation, particularly in the transfer of rocketry technology.
B. Emerging Space-Competent States: Technology-Recipient States
In contrast to EtSC States, the Emerging Space-Competent States (EmSCs) have not yet mastered outer-space technology in all its aspects. Nevertheless they make considerable efforts to develop their qualified manufacturing capabilities. The number of EmSCs is small, but growing. Their major objective is to develop long-term political and development planning for autonomy, and eventually self-sufficiency, in highly specialized technology. This objective is also explained by a wish not to have to purchase American, Russian, European and, recently, Chinese or even Japanese spacewares, but to offer equipment and services in the international space market themselves.
Among EmSCs are Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, and Pakistan, although they are not all at the same level of development in space activities. Some EmSC States have already placed satellites in Earth orbit. Others are not so advanced but are already on the verge of testing indigenously-built space launchers. For example, India and Israel have already manufactured and launched sounding rockets and space launchers. Argentina and Brazil have still not developed launching technology, although they already operate satellites in Earth orbit. Nevertheless, with the exception of Argentina, all EmSC States have been seeking very intensively to close this gap.
1. The Quest to Reach Outer Space
In many instances, the technology gap between established- and emerging-space-competent States is not necessarily due to a late start in outer space activities by EmSCs. Action in Argentina, for example, dates back to 1958, when sounding rockets were launched in the hills of Córdoba Province. 136 In 1960, a Presidential decree created the National Commission of Space Research (CNIE), 137 and rocket activity continued for 18 years. The CNIE, linked to the Secretariat for Science and Technology, also functioned under the auspices of the Air Force for over 30 years, although it was the Instituto de Investigaciones Aeronáuticas y Espaciales (IIAE) which served as the implementing agency for CNIE, by directing and developing a few specific rocketry programmes. The CNIE also participated, inter alia, in the EGANI, EXAMETNET, and EOLE projects in co-operation with companies from France, Germany, and the USA. 138 Experiments used sounding rockets to 400-km heights and involved Alfa Centaura, Orion, and Canopus rockets and balloons. In addition, indigenously-built Argentine rockets were also launched from the Wallops Station in the USA and from Peru and Antarctica. 139
In 1980, a propulsion systems project was created and the Alacran sounding rocket was developed. In addition, the CONDOR programme, also initiated in the early 1980s for the development of an indigenous sounding rocket, was perhaps the most important rocketry engagement undertaken by the CNIE. 140 CONDOR I was a sounding rocket and CONDOR II was expected to launch the Argentinean SAC-1 satellite. However, CNIE was replaced in March 1991 by the National Commission of Space Activities (CONAE), 141 which inherited most of the CNIE infrastructure and programmes including the CONDOR programme. By 1990, all Argentinian activity in sounding rockets and space launchers had ceased for political and economic reasons.
Diagram I.2.A: Structure of Space Activity Institutions in Argentina [non disponible]
In 1994, after its adherence to technology transfer controls, Argentina decided to produce a new generation of space launch vehicles. However, while considerable experience in sounding rockets has been acquired, it seems unlikely that Argentina will develop a space launch vehicle in less than a decade. Nonetheless, the new programme is planned to last from 1995 to 2006; 142 analysis and engineering design of a space vehicle for low-orbit launchers was due to begin in 1996 and last until the year 2000. Sub-system operation and testing were scheduled to run from 2001 to 2006 so that, if all goes well, it is expected that an Argentinian New Generation Space Vehicle (NGSV) could be operational within 10 years.
Brazil has also been developing an industrial park in aeronautics and outer space since the creation, in 1961, of the Organizing Group of the National Commission for Space Activities (GOCNAE). 143 A sounding rocket programme initiated at the AVIBRAS Indústria Aeroespacial from 1965 to 1975 developed the SONDA rocket series--SONDA I, SONDA II-B and SONDA II-C. Reportedly, the SONDA programme utilized technology and components developed by both AVIBRAS and the Ministry of Aeronautics. 144 Starting in 1965, the two-stage SONDA I was used to test technology for solid propellants and short-range rockets, and over 200 SONDA I rockets were launched in a 12-year period . In 1966, work began on a single-stage SONDA II rocket for delivery of civil loads into earth orbit. SONDA II has also tested aerodynamic configuration and functioning during the separation stages. Since 1966, over 50 rockets have been launched in such areas as thermic protection, new propellants, aerodynamic configuration, and electronic components testing. 145
Work began on a two-stage SONDA III rocket for the study of magnetic anomaly in the South Atlantic in 1969 and over 20 of these rockets have been launched since then. In 1974, a bi-stage SONDA IV rocket was produced to test the major propulsion components of a future satellite launch vehicle (VLS), whose development was officially approved with the creation in 1981 of the Brazilian Complete Space Mission (MECB) programme. 146 The creation of the Brazilian Space Agency (BSA) in February 1994 and the approval of the Brazilian National Policy on the Development of Space Activities (PNDAE) in December of the same year endorsed the initial development of a space launcher. 147 The VLS has SONDA IV technology and uses a four-stage solid-propelled rocket. It is designed to place satellites weighing between 100 and 200 kg in a circular orbit of 250-1000 km (see Figure I.2.14). 148
Different versions of SONDA rockets have been constructed for the VLS. Although the VLS-R1 failed a test flight in 1987 (reportedly because of gyroscope guidance technology problems), the VLS-R2 version subsequently completed a test flight successfully. In addition, a two-stage rocket, the VS-40, consisting of a combination of stages from existing sounding rockets, is under construction for propulsion tests in a vacuum chamber. Although there have been several delays in construction, the vehicle was fully mounted in 1996 and underwent tests at IAE (see Photo I.2.26). The first launch of the Brazilian VLS vehicle took place in 1997, resulting in a failure when the vehicle was destroyed a few moments after it was take off. The VLS programme is expected to continue and four other vehicles are scheduled to be built.
Photo I.2.26: VLS Space Launcher Undergoing Test (Brazil) [non diposnible]
Courtesy of CTA/IAEBrazil is also considering the production of a second-generation space-launcher, the Light Space Transport [Transporte Espacial Leve] (TEL). 149 In 1995, a feasibility study was approved for a vehicle capable of launching a 500-kg satellite up to 2,000 km. The vehicle would consist of a Brazilian solid-propellant booster added to a main liquid-propellant rocket acquired abroad, and is expected to be developed with foreign assistance between 1997 and 2002. It is believed that the vehicle could be financially viable for launching prospective Brazilian and other small low-orbit satellites in the next 15 years. In addition, the need for communications satellites is encouraging the development of a more-powerful vehicle to place satellites in geostationary orbit. Such a project could generate additional revenue and make the country's space launch site a more financially viable investment.
In Israel, another EmSC State, activity related to outer space began in 1966 with the creation of the Space Research Institute at Tel-Aviv University. 150 Seventeen years later, in 1983, the Israel Space Agency (ISA) was set up under the Ministry of Science and Technology, since then outer-space-qualified launching capabilities for low Earth orbits have been developed.
Unlike the Brazilian SLV, the Israeli booster has already made successful space launches. The launcher, called Shavit or Comet (see Photo I.2.27), reportedly originates from the solid propelled, one-stage, road-mobile Jericho missile, which is itself a product of French/Israeli co-operation in the late 1960s. 151 After the 1967 War, further development of the Jericho series is said to have become indigenous, and it was then that the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) would have introduced a second stage to the road-mobile missile's body, thus creating Jericho II BM, which enhanced both the range and payload capacity. 152 After different versions of Jericho II, Israel produced Jericho III, although the Shavit space launcher is believed to have inherited most of its technical characteristics from Jericho II. A third stage was added to the vehicle which constitutes the present configuration of the space launcher. The first- generation of the Shavit space launcher was launched three times, in 1988, 1990, and 1995, respectively.
A new generation launcher designed for the international market is reportedly under consideration. 153 Analysts believe that Israel's bid to enter this market may also seek international co-operation to provide different rocket motors or stages for a multinationally-built launcher. Such commercial strategies are part of a trend being pursued by both established- and emerging-space-competent States, with the objective to provide services for the demand to launch small satellites in the next century.
Another EmSC State of interest is India, its outer space programme has focused on sounding-rocket and space-launcher capabilities from the mid-1960s onwards. 154 One important development was the establishment of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) at Thumba, Thiruvananthapuram, which concentrates on indigenous sounding-rockets, space-launchers, and associated technologies, 155 including the Rohini (RH) rocket. The first rocket in this series, the RH-75, was launched in 1967 and there has been continuous development of follow-on versions. For instance, the RH-200 Single Stage Version (SSV) rocket has been successfully tested and another version--the RH-200 Dual Trust (DT) motor--was developed. Work on an even more advanced version, the RH-300, has been completed and is available for scientific experiments. However, at one point the flight of India's most advanced sounding-rocket, the RH-560, was said to be unsatisfactory, but scaled-down requirements have shown the rocket to be effective and it is therefore extensively used. 156 All RH rockets use solid propellent.
Development of space launchers has been undertaken by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) at its Trivandrum facility and includes four rocket types designated as Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV-3), Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle (ASLV), Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV), and Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) (see Table I.2.5). 157 India's first indigenous space-launcher, the SLV-3, made four experimental flights between 1979 and 1983, the first (in 1979) being a failure but those in1980, 1981, and 1983 were considered as partly or fully successful. However, the SLV space-launcher is no longer being manufactured.
There were other problems, such as the flight failures of the ASLV-D1 rocket in 1987 and the ASLV-D2 in 1988. After modification, an ASLV-D3 successfully placed a 110-kg Rohini satellite in orbit on 20 May 1992. The ASLV-D4 was also successfully launched two years later, on 4 May 1994, injecting a SROSS-C2 113-kg satellite into a near-Earth orbit (see Photo I.2.28). 158 While the ASLV-D4 has not yet been officially declared operational, it has been designed to prove a number of technologies that are required for PSLV and the GSLV missions: "[all the objectives of the ASLV programme have been realised." 159 It was therefore launched as an evaluation test flight to analyse, inter alia, (a) its performance in placing a satellite in low-Earth orbit (close to 500 km); (b) its closed-loop guidance system; and (c) its four-stage spin-up system. 160
In the case of the PSLV, however, the technology is quite different from the SLV-3 and the ASLV series, with the exception of the strap-on boosters. In fact, the four- stage rocket uses both SLV-3 solid-fuel boosters and Ariane technology liquid fuel motors. 161 The first PSLV flight, on 30 September 1993, failed owing to "... an error in the implementation of on-board software." 162 The second, the PSLV-D2, was launched on 15 October 1994 and successfully placed an Indian remote-sensing satellite in orbit (see Photo I.2.29). 163
Photo I.2.28: ASLV-D4 Space Launcher (India) [non diponible]
Courtesy of ISROPhoto I.2.29: PSLV Space Launcher (India) [non diponsible]
Courtesy of ISROIn respect of geostationary rockets, the GSLV configuration derives from the PSLV launcher. GSLV vehicles should replace the six solid-propellant strap-on boosters of the PSLV with four liquid strap-on motors. The third and fourth stages of the PSLV (solid and liquid fuel stages) are replaced by a single cryogenic fuel stage. 164 Manufacturing of the rocket system, sub-systems, and motors are were completed and the first flight test in October 1994 was successful.
Last but not least is the rocketry research being undertaken by Pakistan. It began in 1961 with the establishment of the country's Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Committee. 165 A major Pakistani sounding-rocket programme was the construction of a vehicle using a mixture of indigenous and imported technology, the latter originating mostly from NASA, CNES, and BNSC [British National Space Centre] in the early 1960s. 166 For example, the first Pakistani sounding-rocket, the REHBAR-I, was launched from its Flight Test Range (FTR) at Sonmiani on 7 June 1962. 167 The construction of the SUPARCO Plant in 1968 168 provided Pakistan with facilities for building sounding-rockets and instrumentation for rocket-borne and ground-based applications. The first reported Pakistani-built sounding-rocket, a two-stage solid-propellant rocket named REHNUMA-1, was launched in 1969 from the FTR. This rocket was capable of carrying a 35-kg payload up to 160 km. A heavier version, although also a two-stage solid-propellant vehicle, the SHAHPAR, boosted Pakistani sounding-rocket capability to a 55-kg payload up to 450 km.
Pakistan's sounding-rocket programme consists of four main missions using different configurations of its SHAHPAR vehicle (see Photo I.2.30). 169 One is used to study wind structures by reaching altitudes between 20 and 65 km. A second mission consists of launching a sounding-rocket with a dozen grenades which are ejected at altitudes between 25 and 60 km and exploded at pre-determined heights for studies on wind speed, temperature, and pressure. The third mission involves the launching of sounding-rockets to an altitude between 90 and 135 km to compute wind speed and direction, and a fourth mission will eject sodium vapours at altitudes between 200 and 400 km, also for atmospheric studies. In addition to these missions, Pakistan is also capable of lifting "... scientific payloads weighing 30-50 kg to altitudes up to 500 km". 170
Official documents make no mention of any intention by Pakistan to develop space-launcher capability. However, experts in the West believe that Pakistan does intend to lift light to medium-size satellites into low Earth orbits. The first launch of a three-stage rocket meeting these parameters reportedly took place in 1989.
¶ = Estimates made when launched from the Palmachim site and directed westward against the Earth's gravitational pull; A&C/FS = Analysis and Conception phase or Feasibility Study; ASLV = Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle; ESCSs = Emerging Space-competent States; GSLV = Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle; GSTo = Geosynchronous transfer orbit; PSLV = Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle; NGSV = New Generation Space Vehicle; RH = Rohini; SLV = Satellite Launch Vehicle; Spo = Sun-Synchronous Polar orbit; SR = Sounding Rocket; SL = Space Launcher; VLS = Veiculo Lançador de Satélites; .. = Data unavailable; () = Not confirmed.
Source = Data compiled by the author partly in the light of information given in Aaron Karp, "Ballistic Missile Proliferation", World Armaments and Disarmament, SIPRI Yearbook: 1991, SIPRI, Oxford University Press, 1991; "Brazilian Space Program",Centro Técnico Aeroespacial, Instituto de Atividades Espaciais Brochure, Ministry of Aeronautics, Department of Research and Development, São José dos Campos; Brazilian Space Program: Sounding Rockets and Satellite Launcher Vehicle, Aerospace Technical Centre, Ministry of Aeronautics, São José dos Campos; 1991-92 Annual Report, Government of India, Department of Space, Institute of Space Research Organization, Bangalore, 1992; Space India, Volume I, Publication of the Indian Space Research Organisation, January-March 1988; Atlas de Géographie de L'Espace, op. cit., p. 93; John Simpson, Philip Acton and Simon Crowe, "The Israeli Satellite Launch: Capabilities, intentions and implications", Space Policy, vol. 5, No. 2, May 1989, pp. 117-128; Salim Mehmud, "Pakistan's Space Programme", Space Policy, vol. 5, No. 8, August 1989, pp. 217-225; and others.The above discussion clearly shows that it is difficult to compare the history EmSC States' sounding-rocket and space-launching activities with that of the major space-faring nations. Nevertheless, EmSC States do have, overall, significant rocketry experience, but it is difficult to ascertain the total number of sounding-rocket activities that these States have carried out so far. However, as Graph I.2.5 illustrates, sounding-rocket activities were expected to remain constant between 1994 and the year 2000 for all of these countries. Although this forecast depended greatly on the evolution of experimental scientific demands (which changes rapidly according to needs), it is interesting to note that India was expected to lead these countries with a planned 20 launches a year which, in one way, is indicative of the country's active effort to develop outer-space technologies. Taken together, the EmSC States reported here were expected to launch at least 26 sounding-rockets a year, giving a total of over 180 launches between 1994 and the year 2000.
Unlike sounding-rockets, past and future space launches are easier to calculate so that projections can be much more accurate. Accordingly, Graph I.2.6 shows the space-launching activities already undertaken by EmSC States and a projection of what they are expected to do between 1995 and the year 2000. This graph highlights three important facts. First, EmSC States activity is still quite recent. Second, future trends predict a quantitative increase in both the launches themselves and the total number of States involved. While three countries made six launches between 1980 and 1991 (i.e., 11 years), it is predicted that four countries will carry out 16 launches in just over 5 years which is undoubtedly a quantum jump in launching activities by EmSC States.
Thirdly, among the EmSC States, India is also in the lead in space launching. It was expected to carry out twice as many launches as Brazil and more than any of the reported forecasts for any other EmSC State. It should also be noted that, on aggregate, when the number of expected launches from 1995 until the end of the present decade is added to sounding-rocket activity, the total number of rocket launches forecast for that period is considerable: 200.
Unlike the major space-faring nations, EmSCs have few rocket launch-sites - about ten in all. Argentina has operated from two launch-sites: one, named Galopus, and the other, the Falda del Carmen, situated in the Province of Córdoba. The latter site was restored in 1995, but since Argentina no longer has an operational rocketry programme, neither of these sites is scheduled for further space activity. Nevertheless, if at least one of the country's national launching bases were modified to meet launching standards, Argentina could still be able to provide launching services on the international market.
Brazil operates two launching-sites. 171 One is the Air Force's "Barreira do Inferno" - Hell's Barrier - installation near the city of Natal in the State of Rio Grande do Norte, which was previously used as a SONDA rocket test-site and still used for foreign rocket launching. However, for different technical and institutional reasons, it will not be used to launch VLS rockets for commercial purposes, and this has led to the construction of the Alcântara Launch Centre (CLA), a new launch-site in the State of Maranhão.
India operates the TERLS sounding-rocket launch centre in South India and another, the Balasore Range, in the northwestern part of the country. India also operates a space launch-site called the Sriharikota Space Centre (SHAR), about 100 km north of Madras in the Bay of Bengal. SHAR is used for launching remote-sensing and communications satellites, as well as the production of solid propellants for space launchers. In addition, launch ranges at Balasore and Thumba are used by SHAR for space launches. Israel operates a launching site at Palmachim, a military base south of Tel-Aviv. Pakistan launches its sounding-rockets from the Flight Test Range (FTR), situated approximately 50 km northwest of Karachi at Sonmiani Beach on the shores of the Arabian Sea.
Developing, testing, and launching sounding rockets and space boosters is closely related to R&D on BMs. In contrast to the EtSC States which have used BM technology to develop most of their space boosters, EmSC States have generally inversed this policy so that their BM programmes are usually the product of space-booster technology. This is apparently the case with the Argentinian CONDOR rocket, which often appears in the specialized literature under the BM heading. Indeed, it has been reported that Argentina developed the CONDOR II missile in 1984 from the CONDOR I sounding rocket. 172 This was seen by many other States as ballistic missile proliferation, not only because the development of the CONDOR II was launched under the auspices of the Air Force, but also because details on its progress and finance were largely placed under a veil of military-like secrecy. Nevertheless, the Argentinian Government has maintained that it was developing a space booster and not a missile.
CONDOR I's first public appearance was at the Paris Bourget Air and Space show in 1985. The rocket had a special guidance system and was able to propel 50 kg up to a distance of 400 km. The follow-up CONDOR II version, however, was believed by different experts actually to be a two-stage missile with solid and liquid-propelled motors capable of reaching up to 600 km with a 500-kg payload. It was also a mobile missile using a Wegman-type launching base, but it is thought that it was never actually launched. A third missile, the CONDOR II Plus, was capable of doubling the distance carrying the same payload (see Table I.2.6).
By 1988, the CONDOR project had run into budgetary problems and Argentina started work on a joint missile project with Egypt. After encountering technical problems and international pressure, President Menem's Government decided to halt the CONDOR programme and announced its legal termination in April 1990. 173 However, some CONDOR II tubes were found in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. These were thought to be filled with propulsion material, but the Argentinians argued that they were actually maquettes filled with sugar which had been delivered to Egypt, not Iraq. The discovery gave extra impetus to MTCR members, the USA in particular, to call for the destruction of the Argentinian missiles and their means of production. While Argentina found no difficulty with the elimination of the missiles and their accessories, the destruction of its industrial assets did create a problem and it took considerable high level negotiations to reevaluate the initial idea. The missiles and their parts (filled and empty tubes, liquid stages, etc.) were sent by cargo ship to a NATO base in Spain, since when their whereabouts are unknown.
Thus, Argentina's missile production capability was brought to an end. New efforts are underway to develop a new generation of space vehicle which should, inter alia, ensure "...full transparency..." 174 and be "...in accordance with Argentinian policies on non-proliferation and with the international commitments [it has] assumedðin this matter", "ðrejecting any military offensive use of space activities." 175
BM R&D in Brazil has apparently also followed the space booster-to-BM route, developments in the SONDA rocket series being frequently related to private developments regarding BMs. 176 The most controversial missile projects suspected to benefit from SONDA technology were the AVIBRAS SS series (SS-150, SS-300, and SS-1000) and the ORBITA Sistemas Aeroespaciais, S.A., MB series (MB/EE-150, MB/EE-300, MB/EE-600, and MB/EE-1000). Because of the experience and credibility AVIBRAS enjoys in the field of military rocketry, many analysts expected that the SS-300 and the SS-1000 could have been the first Brazilian short- and mid-range ballistic missiles. However, all of the missile projects from both of the above-mentioned companies that were suspected of being SONDA-technology based were either cancelled or temporarily suspended (see Table I.2.6), reportedly because of a shortage of finance and confirmed orders. 177
India is another EmSC State where the civil space effort has been reported to have received some spin-off from on military programmes, despite the fact that the Indian civil and military programmes are run by distinct agencies operating under different civil and military ministries. This is particularly true in the case of the AGNI missile, 178 which is a two-stage solid- and liquid-propelled rocket produced by the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) by the Indian Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). It is a nuclear-capable, intermediate-range ballistic missile, with a first solid-fuelled stage which is said to be similar to the SLV-3 space launcher. 179 In addition, the missile's on-board computer-guided technology was also reported in the mid-90s to be similar to that used in the Indian launch vehicle. 180 The spin-off argument is further strengthened by the fact that Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, former director of the SLV-3 rocket programme, became Director of the IGMDP at Hyderabad in June 1982, and the AGNI missile programme was initiated shortly thereafter.
The AGNI missile was successfully flight tested on 22 May 1989, but a second launch failed owing to premature ignition of the second liquid stage. Although problems were reported in connection with a third flight on 19 January 1994 at the Chandipur-on-Sea test range in Orissa, the test seems to have successfully validated the missile's re-entry technology, in that the missile's stage separation system and an advanced manoeuvring-type warhead are said to have been tracked by radar until it hit its target at sea 1200 km into the Bay of Bengal. 181 The development flights of Prithvi, a single-stage rocket propelled with liquid-fuel were successful as from 1988. Final approval for mass production of the Prithvi (SS-150) was given by the Indian Government in March 1994. 182 Prithvi was believed to be an operational missile in the mid-to-late 1990s. It is reported that a test flight of a longer version of the Prithvi missile was successfully made in 1996. 183 It was launched from a test site on the Orissa coast into the Bay of Bengal and noted in newspapers as being the fifteenth in a series since 1988 and to have boosted the vehicle's range beyond 160 km.
Several military analysts believe that Pakistan's missile development originates, in part, from its sounding rocket facilities, but this development is not entirely indigenous and may also derive from Chinese, French, or Soviet technologies. 184 The French sounding rockets Dauphin, Dragon III, and the Eridan, and the Chinese ship-to shore missile SL-2, in particular, are presumed to be involved. Pakistan is believed to be developing three missiles in the designated Hatf missile family, each with different performances and ranges. The first in the series, Hatf-1, is a single-stage, short-range nuclear-capable rocket. The other two, Haft-2 and 3, are both two-stage, ballistic trajectory rockets believed to be nuclear-capable - particularly Haft-3, which is estimated to have an 800-km range with a 500-kg payload. 185 While Haft-1 is believed to have been operationally deployed as of 1992, Haft-2 is reportedly still under development. Research and development on Haft-3 are apparently still at the design and configuration stage and the missile is not expected to be operational or deployed before the late-1990s.
However, although Pakistan seems to have acquired BM technology, it is generally believed that the country has sufficient facilities to manufacture only a limited quantity of Haft 1 and 2 missiles. Nevertheless, it is also thought that the industry itself requires further development before production on a large scale can be envisaged--for example, the manufacture of critical raw materials for propellant production and major testing of the rocket motors and the missiles themselves. 186
¶= All missile payload capabilities and ranges are based on estimates from various sources; ð= Estimated deployment year.
Source = Data compiled by the author partly from information given in Chandrashekar, S., "An Assessment of Pakistan's Missile Programme", unpublished, 1992; Aaron Karp, "Ballistic Missile Proliferation", World Armaments and Disarmament, SIPRI Yearbook: 1991, SIPRI, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 337; Vivek Raghuvanshi, "Prithvi Gives India Non-Nuclear Punch", Defense News, 7-13 March 1994, p. 12; The Nonproliferation Review, Spring-Summer 1994, vol. 1, No. 3, Monterey: Monterey Institute of International Studies, 1994, pp. 84-7; and others.As discussed above, the development of BMs in Israel, in contrast to other EmSC States, is said to have been the origin of the country's space booster. In addition to the five EmSC States already mentioned, other States, or private companies, with a lower technology level, are identified as having made links between space launch programmes and BM development. Africa and the Middle East are the regions where such links have been most evident--for example, space boosters and BMs in South Africa, which are reportedly linked to equipment and technology supplied by Israel. 187
In the case of Iraq, however, the alleged existence of a launcher programme, which pre-dated the 1991 Gulf War, appeared to be a mixture of missile and space booster technologies. 188 Some analysts argue that Iraq has never had a fully-fledged civilian space-launch programme. Others maintain that Iraq did have space-launcher ambitions. This latter argument is often sustained by the test launch of the so-called Tamouz 1 space launcher in 1989 from the Al Anbar Launch Centre. Apparently, Tamouz 1 was a triple-stage liquid-propelled rocket, which reportedly used the first stage of the Al Aabed missile. 189
Photo I.2.31: UNSCOM Inspection of Destroyed Ballistic Missiles (Iraq) [non disponible]
Courtesy of the United Nations, Photo 159121 / H. ArvidssonHowever, the Gulf War had two major repercussions on Iraq's ability to develop space launch capability. One was the Allied bombing of Iraq's industrial complex. The impact of the war on Iraq's rocket launch manufacturing capability should not be seen only as a matter of hardware destruction, but also from the standpoint of Iraq's capability to access capital for both rocketry and non-rocketry-related investment
The second impact on Iraq's launch development programme is the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 687. 190 Its objective is the destruction or neutralization of all of Iraq's BMs whose range is more than 150 km, and all principal BM components as well as their production and maintenance installations. Accordingly, both Iraq itself and the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) have destroyed items used or intended for use in prohibited missile activities.
Photo I.2.32: Chemical Agent Missile Warhead Sampling (Iraq) [non disponible]
Courtesy of the United Nations, Photo 158637 / Shankar KunhambuFor example, Iraq has announced the unilateral destruction of several BMs and this has been verified by UNSCOM inspectors, as may be seen from Photo I.2.31 which shows a UN inspection team looking at the remains of BMs destroyed by Iraq. Iraq has also said that it has destroyed Al-Hussein chemical-fill missile warheads. Photo I.2.32 shows an Iraqi worker in protective gear climbing into a chemical agent missile warhead so that the warhead can be opened for sampling by UNSCOM inspectors. The UNSCOM team also verified the destruction of missile launchers, decoy missiles, decoy missile launchers and missile support vehicles (see Photos I.2.33 and 34).
The UNSCOM team has also supervised and verified the destruction of production equipment and buildings associated with the BM programme, such as madrels used in the production of solid fuel and rocket propellent for the BADR 2000 BM, and material used in the production of BM nozzles. Inspection of the destruction of solid propellant mixer storage facilities and missile-motor case preparation buildings was also carried out, as shown in Photos I.2.34 and 35.
Photo I.2.35: Destroyed Missile-motor Case Preparation Building (Iraq) [non disponible]
Courtesy of the United Nations, Photo 159127 / H. ArvidssonSurveillance cameras have been installed at various missile test facilities for long-term monitoring, and in view of the complexity and time span needed to develop rocket- launch production, Iraq is not expected to possess such capability until well into the next century.
2. Satellite Capabilities
Satellite R&D is another area in which EmSC States have made considerable technological progress. However, it should be noted that, unlike their rocketry activities, most of the EmSC States did not start national R&D programmes until the 1980s. For example, although Argentina initiated satellite activities under CNIE auspices at the beginning of the decade, it was only in 1988 that a project known as SAC-1 (Scientific Applications Satellite-1) was set up with the aim of developing a small scientific satellite for placement in orbit by an American SCOUT rocket. 191 SAC-1 later became the SAC-B project where CONAE and NASA developed a scientific satellite to carry both Argentinian and American scientific devices. CONAE's role was to build the platform and structure and to operate the ground segment. 192 SAC-B was expected to stay in orbit for three years, but the satellite which was launched by the Pegasus launcher October 1996 remained attached to the last stage of the launcher.
In 1994, there was a major shift in Argentina's space activities when the CONAE proposal for an 11-year National Space Plan (1995-2006) was adopted. 193 The plan endorses the SAC project and includes remote sensing and communications missions. Three satellites (SAC-C, D, and E) were scheduled to be manufactured and launched in 1998, 2001, and 2004, respectively. 194 For remote sensing, SAC-C and D will carry Multi Spectral-Medium-Resolutions Scanner (MMRS) cameras, although the exact resolution is not yet known. A series of communications satellites are also due to be launched early in the new millennium: SAOCOM-1 [Satellites for Observation and Communications] in 2000, SAOCOM-2 in 2003, and SAOCOM-3 in 2006. Some of these will also carry radar systems. 195 Other plans include the possible development of the SABIA Earth observation satellite with Brazil and the CESAR spacecraft with Spain.
In Brazil, indigenous satellite development also began at the beginning of the 1980s. Four satellites are to be designed, developed, integrated, tested, and operated by the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) 196 within the MECB programme. 197 Two of these four satellites are designed to collect environmental data 198 --the SCD1 (see Photo 1.44) and SCD2 [Data Collecting Satellite or SCD]--and the other two will conduct remote-sensing operations--the SSR1 and SSR2 [Remote Sensing of the Earth or SSR]. 199 Although scheduled for 1989, delay in completing the Brazilian VLS meant that the SCD1 launch by an American Pegasus rocket had to be postponed until February 1993. The SCD2, which contained several design and component innovations, was also ready for launch before the completion of the Brazilian space launcher. The SCD2 satellite was lost during the unsuccessful flight of the VLS in 1997.
In addition to the SSR1 and SSR2 series, further remote-sensing activity was envisaged after Brazil concluded an agreement, on 6 July 1988, with the People's Republic of China--the China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellites (CBERS)--to set up a programme of co-operation which included, inter alia, the development of two Earth imaging satellites. 200 CBERS 1 is expected to provide spatial resolutions between 20 and 260 m with three different sensors, one of which is a 20-m CCD [Charge Coupled Device] sensor. A second is an 80-m Infra-Red Multispectral Scanner (IR-MSS) for panchromatic and medium infra-red bands with 160 m for the thermal band. And the third is a Wide-Field Imager (WFI)--260 m. 201 The agreement called for CBERS 1 to be launched by a Long March Chinese rocket from the Shanxi launch-site and the satellite should have an expected lifespan of approximately two years to be replaced by the CBERS 2 spacecraft.
The approval of a feasibility study of CBERS C and D may ensure the future of the series. Of particular importance are the optical sensors are these satellites, which would have image resolutions in the order of 1-2 m. 202 Other objectives in achieving indigenous satellite production capability include R&D in such areas as inertial platforms and gyroscopes, and atmospheric re-entry. 203 In addition, a programme has been approved under which Brazilian and American institutions will provide a radar satellite to look after environmental issues in the Amazon region. 204
Photo I.2.38: Data-Collecting Satellite 1 (Brazil) [non disponible]
Courtesy of INPEWith regard to communications satellites, the purpose of the ECO-8 project is to manufacture and launch 8-10 (two spares) small spacecraft by the planned TEL vehicle. 205 The ECO-8 concept was conceived to cover an equatorial area of approximately 2000 km encompassing not only Brazil but also parts of Africa, Australia, and Asia. In all, the project was designed to launch a constellation of 32 small satellites during 14 years. ECO-8 was also expected to be merged with the American Bell Atlantic International and Constellation Communications, Inc. (CCI) System to form the Equatorial Constellation Communications (ECCO) system of 12 spacecraft, which would also enlarge the reach of the original satellite constellation. 206
Three generations of spacecraft have been developed in Israel, 207 the first being an indigenous experimental satellite. A joint ISA/IAI venture drew up the OFEQ satellite programme, which led to the launching of the first Israeli-built spacecraft, the 156-kg OFEQ-1 or Horizon-1, on 19 September 1988 by a Shavit rocket. The satellite remained in orbit for three months testing the functional ability of its sub-systems and providing Israel with qualified platform design for follow-on generations. The second Israeli satellite, the OFEQ-2, was launched, again by a Shavit rocket, on 3 April 1990 and remained in orbit until July. 208 The Advanced OFEQ satellites are scientific spacecraft which conduct various experiments in the outer space environment and unlike the short life-span of their predecessors they are expected to remain in orbit for several years
Third generation technology is concerned with the development of geostationary communications and reconnaissance satellites. One such satellite, approved in June 1989, and developed by the IAI, is the AMOS communications satellite. AMOS was launched on 16 of May 1996. A second spacecraft is the Israeli Institute of Technology's TECHSAT satellite. This was launched--unsuccessfully--by a Russian Start-1 rocket on 28 March 1994 and the satellite was lost. 209 OFEQ-3, a R&D and reconnaissance spacecraft, was launched by an Israeli launcher on 5 April 1995. 210
Pakistan is also involved in R&D on satellite programmes, although to a much lesser degree than the other EmSC States. The main objective is to be able to design and build small communication and remote-sensing satellites, 211 hence Pakistan's efforts to indigenously design and develop the country's first spacecraft--BADR-1. A light-weight (70-kg) scientific satellite for experimental communication, the BADR-1 was launched by a Chinese CZ-E2 rocket on 16 July 1990 and remained operational for 35 days. Another programme for a small second-generation satellite (50 kg), for low Earth orbit applications, the BADR-B, was developed. 212 The BADR-B carried a CCD Earth imager to operate at an altitude of about 800 km.
A second programme, focused on telecommunications and television broadcasting, is the Domestic Communication Satellite System (PAKSAT), a project backed by private industry. Originally, it was to manufacture and launch two satellites positioned in geostationary orbit, one active, the other with in-orbit spare status. 213 However, little information is available on the development of PAKSAT's present architecture.
Other satellite activities include SUPARCO's operation of satellite ground-stations; 214 the one at Islamabad receives LANDSAT, SPOT, and NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] data. Pakistan is also actively involved in international projects such as the ARGOS Network and the COSPAS-SAT programme. SUPARCO is also active in radio and optical tracking.
Because India started satellite R&D in the 1970s, it has the most diversified programme of all the EmSC States in both the number and type of spacecraft produced. 215 India placed the Rohini Satellite 1 (RS-1) in orbit in 1980, the RS-2 in 1981, and the RS-3 in 1983. First-generation Indian satellites belong to the Indian National Satellite (INSAT) series, and the first such craft, INSAT-1B, developed by the American Ford Aerospace Company, was launched with a US STS in 1983, although operated by Indian ground facilities. Its successor, the INSAT-1C was launched in 1988 but, for technical reasons, became inoperable in the same year. The INSAT-1 series ended with the launch by Ariane of INSAT-1D in June 1990.
The new generation of Indian satellites consists of INSAT-2, the Indian Remote-Sensing Satellite (IRS), and the Stretched Rohini Satellite Series (SROSS), all of which are indigenously-built spacecraft. 216 The launching of the INSAT-2A on 10 July 1992 by an Ariane booster marked a major milestone in the ISRO programme. INSAT-2A is a multipurpose satellite carrying high-power S-band TV transponders, 18 C-band transponders, and a very high resolution meteorological radiometer. 217 INSAT-2B carried instruments similar to its predecessor when launched by Ariane on 23 July 1993. More-advanced follow-on spacecraft such as the INSAT-2C, INSAT-2D and INSAT-2E are being developed and plans for a third generation (INSAT-3) have been announced. These are all planned to be launched by an Indian GSLV vehicle.
Development of indigenous remote-sensing capability, including synthetic aperture radar, has been considerable. The IRS-1A [Indian Remote Sensing] was launched by a Soviet Proton rocket in March 1988, and the follow-on IRS-1B in August 1991 by a Vostok vehicle. Both satellites carried a Liner Imaging Self-Scanner (LISS-II), which operates in the visible and near infra-red regions of the optical spectrum. A third version, the IRS-1E, was lost through PSLV launch failure in September 1993. IRS-P2 (Photo 1.50), which carries an Earth imager with similar capability, was successfully launched on 15 October 1994 by an Indian rocket. The second generation IRS-1C and IRS-1D was launched in late-1997. The IRS-C is much more advanced than its predecessors and has a spatial resolution of 5.8 m, thereby privileging India in the commercial imagery market.
However, the SROSS programme has encountered misfortune unrelated to the satellite's performance. The SROSS-A and SROSS-B, for example, were victims of failures by the ASLV space launcher, although the rocket successfully placed an SROSS-C2 in orbit in May 1994.
As shown in Table I.2.7, EmSC States have overall developed (or are on the verge of doing so) satellite manufacturing capability for different applications, giving priority to communications and Earth observation. Other technologies, such as environmental monitoring and ground-based tracking, are also quite promising which, coupled with launching vehicles, has propelled the EmSC countries on to the international commercial market. However, this also causes concern about military activity and possible dual use.
Photo I.2.42: IRS3-P2 Satellite (India) [non disponible]
Courtesy of ISRO
3. Access to Outer Space Capabilities: Challenges Ahead
The preceding discussion has described the significant differences between Established and Emerging Space-Competent States, in terms of the scope of their outer-space activities and technology programmes. While EmSC States have mastered or are about to master activities such as sounding-rocket launches or launches to low orbits, only India appears to have attained the capability to boost rockets to geostationary orbit or indeed deep space.
A second observation is that, as a rule, EmSC States are still developing small satellites (smallsats) weighing a few hundred kilograms with rather limited applications and life-spans. Again, India is an exception in that it has designed and developed larger multiple-application spacecraft. Israel has also significantly developed its military satellites.
A third feature of EmSC States is that they have set up ground-control centres to receive, process, and disseminate national and foreign satellite data, with India again having the most ambitious programme of all. So far no EmSC State is involved in a major co-operation programme with an EtSC State of the magnitude of the Alpha International Space Station, India did send an astronaut into space with the Soyuz T-11 in 1984. It has also developed and produced solid and liquid propellants for both sounding rockets and space launchers.
There is little doubt that the competence acquired by the EmSC States includes the basic technology for the military use of space boosters and development of missiles, particularly ballistic vehicles. However, the magnitude of EmSC States' BM programmes and the extent to which technology has moved from the civil to the military sector is less clearly identifiable than for EtSC States. Furthermore, most of the civil satellites that are capable of producing militarily-relevant data are owned by the major EtSC States. Thus, there is a clear gap between EtSC States and the new manufacturers in respect of both daylight sensors and infra-red devices and radars, and the acquisition of manufacturing capability for military-type space-based sensors by EmSC States constitutes a significant shortcoming.
Nevertheless, in a broader sense, EmSC States appear to aim to have a footing in the international market for the sale of qualified outer space products, technologies and services. For the time being however, most of these States are only recipients of such commodities, their production capability being still unproven. As for the EtSC States, they too are also continuing to develop civil and military equipment and space applications. Given this evolving situation, it is worth noting that the possession and transfer of dual-use outer-space technologies pose at least three major challenges to the international community:
A. Civil and Military Uses of Outer Space Technologies
Although it can be argued that technology itself is neutral, the use that is made of it can be detrimental to peace and security. For every one of the three areas of space exploration (launching, satellite, and tracking), there are dedicated military assets and civil systems that can be and are used for military purposes. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify all the implications that access to outer space technology by both established and emerging space-competent States might have for international security. Since there is some technical distinction between the different launch vehicles, there is also a difference in their civil or military missions. This is less so in the case of satellites and Earth-tracking devices. Moreover, it is not only equipment and material that can be used for dual purposes, it is also the data they that they provide and the services which must accompany their use.
Hence there is a need to assess the role that outer space technology plays in the restructurization of armed forces worldwide. It is not enough to know how these technologies can enhance war fighting capabilities; it is essential to know how these technologies can improve preventive diplomacy, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution. It is also vital to consider how space technology can contribute to the design and implementation of a durable new world order.
B. Technology Transfers and Control Regimes
Non-proliferation is a central concern in the international security debate and outer space technologies are some of the significant components of that debate. That there is a gap in space competence between the EtSC and the EmSC States stems, in part, from the history of space technology development, it also reflects the development divide between industrialized countries and developing countries. Why does the experience of EtSC States make them resist opening up routes for technology transfer? How and why does the dual use of outer space technologies affect the EtSC States' non-proliferation strategies? Is the link between the development of BMs and space launchers, satellites and detection technology the only issue governing EtSC States' technology transfer policies; or are other political or economic considerations involved?
An understanding of the issues at stake will help the international community to:
- address the military, political, and other aspects of non-proliferation;
- draw up realistic and practical multilateral action on technology transfer to close the gap between EtSC and EmSC States; and
- develop a multilateral agreement to ensure the transfer of space technology without undermining regional or global peace and security.
C. Liberalization of Military-Grade Goods
As has already been stated, the commercial, civilian use of military assets, technologies, and services is an important factor in non-proliferation discussion. The end of the Cold War has had a fundamental impact on international relations. Access to outer space technologies can boost co-operation and sustainable development, but to address this challenge military spin-off activities in space and related sectors will need to be identified. This is already being implemented in such areas as the use of decommissioned BMs as commercial sounding rockets and space launchers. Another potential initiative could be a search for new synergies between military and civil uses of outer space.
Such a search could also stimulate innovation and competitiveness. However, the most revolutionary aspect appears to relate more to end-use products and their users rather than to new equipment, where the objective is to develop a new culture in the use of space technology, equipment, and services. Promising initiatives with high future potential include synergy with industrial, scientific and traditional defence-oriented applications. The major challenge is to strike a balance between the search for new initiatives whereby the space industry and other sectors would attempt to penetrate the social fabric with improved and original services, and the danger that uncontrolled access to military-grade goods could pose if used by outlawed groups and individuals (e.g., terrorist and guerrilla groups, organized crime, etc.).
