Proceedings of the Workshop - United Nations Office for Outer ...

EXPANDING GLOBAL LAUNCH SERVICES 37established launch providers have experienced failuresboth with the proven and the new launch vehicles,affecting the confidence of the parties concerned, atleast temporarily. Examples are the Space Shuttledisaster in 1986, and, much more recently, the failedfirst European Ariane 5 launch in 1996, the RussianProton in December 1997, the Japanese H-2 inFebruary 1998, the U.S. Delta 3 and Titan 4 in August1998, the Ukrainian Zenit 2 in September 1998, and inthe first 5 months of 1999 four more U.S. failuresinvolving the Delta 3, the Titan 4 (2) and the Athena 2.A private industry database on all spaceflightsperformed shows 60 significant launch failures since1990.4A number of suggested explanations for this recentstring of U.S. failures includes an overreliance oncomputer models instead of flight testing, too fewexperienced engineers for too many programs, thepressure to reduce cost in the face of foreigncompetition, and an “unprecedented number ofcustomers in science, communications and otherindustries clamoring to get their payloads into space.”5Whether the launch failures occur in the U.S.,Brazil or Japan, the effects are worldwide because ofthe international customer base and the latter’srequirements. In fa c t, the limited number of countrieswith a launch industry creates a vulnerability of theindustry in toto for disruption of services to theircustomers. It is not uncommon to have lengthy postaccidentinvestigations, pending the outcome of whichthe launcher or even the complete launch familyremains grounded: it took one and a half years beforethe Space Shuttle resumed services; the recent Delta 2failure caused a 4 month hiatus in Delta 2 launches; theProton failure of December 1997 grounded that vehiclefor 3 months and flights of the Titan 4 have beenpostponed indefinitely. This may seriously affect thecontinuity or feasibility of those (planned)activities/services which depend on the launch industry,such as the global telecommunications andmeteorological services industry.Whether and how soon these technical problemsmay be solved in each case depends on national hightech knowledge and their expertise. We emphasize theword national, because the space industry, and thelaunch industry more in particular, is subject to, if notthe victim of, a number of aspects and factors typicalfor that industry, which hamper internationalcooperation:• Military-strategic background• National prestige• National security• Foreign policyImportant to understand nations’ attitudes towardsthe sharing of this technology with ‘outsiders’ is thefact that the launch vehicles are often regarded asdangerous, similar to military missiles.6 In fa c t, thetransfer of know-how about launch vehicles and launchtechnology from one country to another is discouragedthrough national export controls, which in many casestreat launch vehicles as missiles, that is as a means ofdelivery systems for weapons of mass destruction(WMD, i.e. nuclear, chemical and biological weapons).Basis for these national controls is a multilateralregime, the Missile Technology Control Regime(MTCR) of 1987. This regime includes Guidelines forsensitive missile-relevant transfers and an Equipmentand Technology Annex, which require the participatingcountries to exercise “particular restraint” in theconsideration of transfers of complete rocket systemswhich include ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles,and sounding rockets, all with certain performancecriteria, and complete subsystems, as well as thespecially designed production facilities for these (sub)systems, including the equipment and technology,4 The U.S. -based Aerospace Corporation, as quoted in NYT(May 12, 1999) at 1 (“Series of rocket failures unnerves U.S.space launching industry”)3 Id. As another space programs expert, John Pike, quoted in thesame article notes, “[s]pace launch vehicles are inherentlyunreliable and people should understand that this is still a riskybusiness.”6President Kennedy, asked in an interview in the early 1960s toexplain the difference between the rocket that put John Glenninto orbit and a missile carrying a nuclear bomb, was reportedto have answered with one word: “attitude!”