Xref: utzoo sci.space:12588 sci.space.shuttle:3403
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!gary.dec.com!hughes
From: hughes@gary.dec.com
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST
Message-ID: <3737@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 25 Jul 89 16:14:13 GMT
References: <BRUNO.89Jul25133909@ha7.inmic.se> <1989Jul24.033656.20927@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@shlump.nac.dec.com
Followup-To: sci.space
Lines: 26

re: the solid propellant mixer for Ariane 5

My understanding is that it was to be purchased by Arianespace from a private company. At
a guess, I'd say that US Gov't approval would be required to export a propellant mixer,
but that would have been the limit of Gov't involvement.

However, some Gov't agency has decided that replacing the mixer in the Hercules plant is
of strategic importance and has diverted the mixer being built for Arianespace. I don't
think you can blame the manufacturer for that; it is Gov't interference. All they have
to do is revoke the export license.

However, it doesn't alter your basic point... in space activities, the US just is not a
reliable partner. I'm sure all countries have policies that could affect, say, launch
assignments at times of strategic need (e.g. I think the need to launch a replacement 
for the malfunctioning French Telecom shuffled the Ariane launch manifest slightly)
but when combined with apparently haphazard changes in national space policies, 
especially those surrounding commercial space activity, it is no wonder that other
countries get nervous.

NASA refusal to launch satellites that may compete with Intelsat was one of the driving
forces behind the French Diamant launchers and the later Ariane series. Ever wonder why
the Diamant first stage burned turpentine and nitric acid? The US refused to export the
hydrazine that they wanted to use.

gary
(hughes @star.dec.com)