Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections

This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.

Collection: Stucky, Edward: Files

Folder Title: US/Soviet Space Race – AIAA Media Briefing Box: 12

To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library

To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection

Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]

Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

1010 16th STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 202/78S-0293 A/AA Media '

The US/Soviet Space Race:

Today and Tomorrow

July 15, National Press Club AMERIC~N INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

KIAA MEDIA BRIEFING JULY 15

1010 16th STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20036 202/78S-0293 Panelists:

Ms. lv'.iarcia Smith Scierce Policy Research Division Congressional Research Service Library of congress Washington, D.C. (202) 28:7-7065

Dr. Burton Edelson NA.SA Headquarters Code AE-3 Washington, D.C. 20546 (202)453-8429

Mr. Nicholas Johnson Teledyne Brown Engineerir)3 1250 .Academy Park Loop Colorado Sprin;s, a:> 80910 (303) 574-7270

Mr. Charles walker M::Donnell Douglas Astronautics co. 1225 Jefferson Davis Hwy. tBOO Arlington, VA 22202 (703) 553-3814

Dr. Jerry Grey 1UAA 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (212) 581-4300 BIOGRAPHY

Marcia S. Saith

Marcia Smith is a Specialist in Aerospace Policy f-0r the Congressional Research Service, a department of the Library of Congress, in Washington, D. C. At CRS, she serves as an adviser and consultant to the Members and committees of the U.S. Congress on matters concerning military and civilian space activities around the world, particularly Soviet space programs. She has been with CRS since 1975, first as an Analyst in Aerospace and Energy Systems, and since 1980 in her current position. She has also served as Section Head for Energy, Aerospace, and Transportation Technologies.

Prom 1985-1986, Ms. Smith took a leave of absence in order to serve as Executive Director of the National Commission on Space. The Commission, created by Congress and appointed by the President, developed long term goals for the civilian space program. Its recommendations were published in the report "Pioneering the Space Frontier" which details proposed space activities through the year 2035.

A graduate of Syracuse University, Ms. Smith is the author or co-author of over seventy reports and articles on space, nuclear energy, and telecommunications. Prior to joining CRS, she worked in the Washington office of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Ms. Smith is President of Women in Aerospace. She is Immediate Past President of the American Astronautical Society and serves on its Executive Committee. She is also a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, and an Associate Pellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). She is a member of AIAA's Public Policy Committee, International Activities Committee, and Space Systems Technical Committee, and has served as an AIAA Distinguished Lecturer since 1983. She is a Senior Member of the International Academy of Astronautics and a Life Member of the New York Academy of Sciences. She is also a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the International Institute of Space Law, the Washington Academy of Science, and Sigm~ Xi, the scientific research society.

Ms. Smith is the daughter of Sherman K. Smith and the late Shirley (Schafer) Smith. Born on February 22, 1951 in Greenfield, Massachusetts, she now resides in Arlington, Virginia. The recipient of two Library of Congress Outstanding Performance Awards, she is listed in Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in the East, American Men and Women of Science, and Jane's Who's Who in Aviation and Space.

April 1987 MANNED SPACEFLIGHT AND LAUN:H VEHICLE'S

Marcia Smith

Sirx::e the Challenger tragedy, interest has been revived in the tra­ ditional rivalry between the United-'=States arrl Soviet Union in space activities, particularly those related to rranned spaceflight. Alth:>ugh the United States r5lla.ins ahead of the Soviets in many aspects of space, the Soviets clearly have an advantage in one specific area-the use of crews in Earth orbit. They also are developing nfM launch vehicles that in the future will give them the ability to launch very heavy payloads to Earth orbit and beyorrl.

Manned Spaceflight

The Soviet lead in rranned space operations developed oot because of the Challel'Y3"er tragedy, but because of p:>licy decisions made in the U.S. iri. the mid seventies to launch no manned space missions between the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) and the first flight of the space shuttle in 1981. Dur.in; this six-year hiatus, the Soriets were redoubling their manned space effort, focusing on the use of space stations.

The world's first space station, Salyut 1, had been launched by the soviets in 1971. The Soviet program, like any high risk venture, encountered its share of problems arxi tragedy, however. The first crew to stay on board Salyut 1 was killed during reentry. The next b.c Soviet space stations failed before they could be occupied. During this period, while the United States was larrling crEMs on the Moon and usin; the Skylab space station, the Soviet manned program was in serious trouble.

This chan;ed as the decade progressed. By the tine the U. S • had terrporarily stopped its rna.nne:i flights, the Soviets had successfully launche:i two rcore Salyuts. In 1977, they launched Salyut 6, a secorrl­ generation space station, and_ ushered in a na; era for their rna.nne:i program. Salyut 6 had two operational docking ports that penn:i.tted resupply flights to bring food, fuel and other consumables to the crews, arrl therefore to lengthen the duration of Soviet manned missions. Salyut 7, a replacement for Salyut 6 launche:i in 1982, continued this trend, an:l in 1984, a U...0- rna.n crew on Salyut 7 set the existing duration record of 237 days. During their stays on space stations, the erews rot only performed wide-ranging experiments, but daronstrated on-orbit repair arrl rraintenance of the space stations.

These activities continue today on the third-generation space station, Mir (Peace) , which has six dockill3' ports. The b.Q-man crew that took up residency on Mir in February 1987 is expected to set a n.fM duration record, airl has already proved its value by solvil'Y3" a problem en::ountered when the Soviets docked an x-ray astrophysics m::xiule, •Kvant, to the Mir carplex.

With Mir, the Soviets have created a flexible, versatile laboratory in orbit. Modules outfitted for specific tasks such as rerrote sensing or materials processing can be docked at the various ports for different periods of time. As research direction.5 change, the m:xiules can be Smith/2

replaced. It is a "lCM-tech" approach to spaceflight-they still do oot have the technology evidenced in the U.S. shuttle system, for example­ but their lack of sophisticated Western techn:>logy has rot slowed their acccrrplishments.

An irrportant point to rernanber is that this lead did not happen because of the current problems in the u .s. program. Even when the u .s. shuttle r~ flight, the United States will still be behind since the shuttle can remain in orbit for only short periods of time. Not until the United States has its CMn space station will it be able to catch up with the Soviets in the use of crews in Earth orbit.

New launch Vehicles

In addition to their continued success in manned space activities, the Soviets have been develop.in:1 new launch systems. After the intro­ duction of the Proton launch vehicle in 1965, the Soviets went through a long period of having no DEM launch vehicles. Attempts to develop a Saturn-V class vehicle in the late 1960s failed. Recently, however, the Soviets have introduced two DEM launch vehicles. One, called SL-X-16, is rot particularly large canpared to the Proton, but apparently uses new technology for its liquid oxygen/kerosene engines.

Of rrcre interest is the Energ,ta launch vehicle tested on May 15, 1987-the ·long-awaited Saturn-V class vehicle. Once Energia is oper­ ational, the Soviets will have the capability to launch heavy payloads into Earth orbit and beyond, including their version of a space shuttle. Not only in Energia big, but it uses liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen fuel for its engines. While the United States, Europe and China have used this high efficiency fuel combination for years, the Soviets have only now introduced it into their laurx:::h vehicle systans. Energia has captured the imagination of Western space observers, but it should be borne in mirrl that the Soviets have taken this giant step only to arrive at a point where the United States stood 20 years ago. It should also be reme:m:,ered that the May 15 test was a failure­ the payload larrled in the Pacific Ocean instead of reaching orbit. Still, Energia eventually will give the Soviets a capability the U.S. ro longer has. Conclusion In these trying tirres for the U.S. space program, overreaction to the Soviet lead in manned space operations am the introduction of the new launch systems is a danger. The United States is still considerably ahead of the Soviets in basic space techn:>logy, and in specific aspects of space activities such as space science and applications. To maintain the proper perspective in assessing the relative positions of both countries-the "who's ahead" question--the entire history of both pro­ grams shOul.d be reviewed, not just the present situation. By doing so, the temptation to create arother "Sputnik" environment can be avoided. Smith/3

After all, it was the u .s. decision to resporx1 to Soviet space activities in a crisis atnosphere that contributed to the current. policy dilemna in Which we firrl ourselves withOut long rarge space goals. Marcia s. Smith Specialist in Aerospace Policy Congressional Research Service

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the congressional Research Service or the Library of congress.

#

, N/\51\ Biographical National Aeronautics and Data Space Administration Washington, 0.C. 20546

BURTON I. EDELSON

Burton I. Edelson will join the Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute in August, 1987. Since 1982, he has been Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Science and Applications of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He was responsible for the planning and direction of all NASA programs · involving space science and applications, and institutional management of the Goddard Space Flight Center, at Greenbelt, Md., and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at Pasadena, Calif. Prior to joining NASA, Dr. Edelson was with the Communications Satellite Corporation for 14 years, as Senior Vice President and Director of COMSAT Laboratories. Previously, he served for 20 years as a commissioned officer in the U."S. Navy. During his naval service, he served in the Office .of Naval · Research and on the staff of tne National Aeronautics and Space Council. · Dr. Edelson is a Registered Professional Engineer and a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. He has authored .various technical and scientific papers and has lectured in the U.S. and abroad • .· ·or. Edelson received his B.S. degree from the U.S. Naval Academy and his M.S. and Ph.D degrees from Yale University.

July, 1987 AIAA MEDIA BRIEFING ABSTRACT COMPARISON OF US/USSR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PLANS IN SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS

DR. BURTON I. EDELSON HEADQUARTERS NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

JULY 15,1987

The U. S. space science program started with Explorer I in 1958, with the detection of .the Van Allen belts. The realization of practical applications of space systems started with Echo and Tires in 1960. Throughout the 1960s and 70s, the scope of the U.S. science and applications program grew with the exploration of the planets as a leading program. Significant a7co~plishments were made by the Pioneers, Rangers, and Mariner missions. In 1976, the Viking program culminated with two spectacular landings on the planet Mars. 1977 saw the launch of two Voyager spacecraft to Saturn and Jupiter. The last Pioneer, launched in 1978, is still making useful scientific measurements in orbit around Venus today. Soviet space science efforts during the 60s and 70s, although quite broad in scope, were somewhat less successful. In the 1980s, with a narrower program concentrating on Venus, the Soviets have had many successful accomplishments. In their Venera program, since 1982, they have had four scientific landers, two radar mappers, and two Vega spacecraft which dropped balloons and landers at Venus and then went on to encounters with Comet Halley.

At present, the U.S. is developing three planetary ~ missions: The Magellan Venus radar mapper, the Galileo mission to Jupiter, and the Mars Observer. Planned for the 90s are: the Comet Rendezvous Asteriod Fly-by Mission (CRAF), the Lunar -2-

Observer, and Cassini --- a joint NASA-ESA Saturn-Titan mission. As a major new initiative, NASA is considering the Mars Rover Sample Return mission. · The Soviets have recently announced plans for a very intensive and ambitious planetary effort, continuing their exploration of the inner planets, this time aiming at Mars. The approved Phobos project will send two spacecraft off next year to probe and measure the moons of Mars. The following, as yet unapproved, Soviet planetary program includes a Mars orbiter, lander and balloon mission for launch in 1992; an asteroid mission in 1994; and a Mars Sample Return Mission in 1996 or '98. Soviet scientists have invited their colleagues from many other countries to cooperate with them in their planned planetary effort and have expressed their desire to have the U.S. provide a Mars rover and sampler in cooperation with their return mission in the late 90s. The U.S. must decide in the next few months whether to cooperate or compete with the U.S.S.R. in a Mars program; or to direct its planetary p~ogram in a different direction.

-END- NICHOIAS L. J0HNSCN

EXPERTISE: Internationally recognized authority on Soviet space systems and artlflclal space debris. Eight years experience In space defense and space surveillance analyses and operations.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

1906 • Present: Advisory Scientist, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Responsible for providing the highest le.vet of technical expertise in organizations performing· theoretical and operational research functions for a wide variety of Government space-related projects, including strategic defense, space defense, space surveillance, and threat analysis. Provided pre- and post­ flight hazard analysis for the SDIO D-180 experiment and post-event assessment of the fragmenta­ tion of Ariane rocket bodies. Created threat profile document for the U.S. Space Defense Opera­ tions Center. Conducted space environment background assessment for NASA. In charge of the TBE Colorado Springs Office in the absence of the Technical Director.

1983 - 1985: Manager of Space Systems Analysis, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Directed all space defense, space surveillance, and space debris analytical activities. Super­ vised the development and exercise of a large, end-to-end computer simulation of anti-satellite weapon systems and C3 networks for several Government agencies. Conducted space threat analyses, served as technical advisor for space-related ballistic missile defense projects, and performed analyses for Strategic Defense Initiative studies. Provided pre- and post-flight hazard analyses for the P-7 8 anti-satellite experiment. In support of NORAD and NASA space surveillance requirements, in charge of realtime space event evaluations, space surveillance software development, space object iden­ tification, satellite breakup analysis, and orbital debris and space environment issues. Designed auto­ matic foreign launch processor and unknown satellite identification software for operational use in the NORAD Space Surveillance Center and directed revisions to all NORAD satellite catalogs as well as implementation of a new database management system for all historical foreign space launches.

1979 • 1982: Prlnclpal Technologlst, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Costa Mesa, California. Per­ formed threat analyses for U.S.-space defense anti-satellite systems. Created scenarios at various conflict levels to reveal operational deficiencies and sensitivities and to postulate subsequent system responses. Defined measures of merit and countermeasure/counter-countermeasure options. Technical leader of the Space Defense Command and Control System (SPADCCS) sizing scenarios for the Aerospace Defense Command.

PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS:

Soviet Year In Space, Teledyne Brown Engineering, annually since 1981.

Soviet Mllltary Strategy In Space, Jane's Publishjng Company, 1987.

Soviet Space Programs 1980-1985, American Astronauti~ Society, 1987. Artificial Space Debris, with Darren S. McKnight, Orbit Book Company, 1987.

Handbook of Soviet Manned Space Flight, American Astronautical Society, 1980.

Handbook of Soviet Lunar and Planetary Exploration, American Astronautical Society, 1979.

More than 50 technical papers presented to national and international symposia and published in scientific and military books and journals, including Soviet Armed Forces Review Annual, Interna­ tional Countermeasures Handbook, Space Policy, Advances In Space Research, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Spaceflight, Space, Defense Systems Review, AIR FORCE Magazine, Signal, Miiitary ElectronlcslCountermeasures, C31 Handbook, Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology and others.

PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS:

Guest Lecturer at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the Air Force Institute of Technology and the Naval Post-Graduate School. Primary Contributor to Jane's Spaceflight Directory for Soviet space systems. Consultant to NASA and Congressional assessments of Soviet space systems. Previously, Military Space Editor of Journal of C411Countermeasures and.Space Editor of Defense Systems Review. Moderator and Speaker at national and international space conferences and symposia, e.g. the in­ ternational Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society. Member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Armed Forces Communica­ tions and Electronics Association.

EDUCATION:

S.S., Physics (magna cum l~ude) , Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee. Graduate work in Space Physics, Rice University, Houston, Texas. Numerous courses in Electronics, Physics, Mathematics, Nuclear Propulsion, Avionics Maintenance in USAF and USN service schools.

MILITARY EXPERIENCE:

U.S. Navy ( 1975-1979), Director, Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Division and Machinery Theory for Mechanical Operators Division, U.S. Naval Nuclear Power School. Responsible for the academic cur­ riculum and instruction for up to 1 000 students. Supervised 15-20 commissioned and senior non­ commissioned officers.

U.S. Air Force (1969-1972), Technician, Aircraft Electronic Navigation Equipment.

Awards: USAF Commendation Medal, National Defense Medal, USAF Good Conduct Medal, Viet­ nam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry (unit), USAF Unit Citation (twice). . (

PERSPECTIVES ON MILITARY SATELLITES

Nicholas L. Johnson

National defense space systems, better known to the general public as military satellites, have historically been the subject of a host of misconceptions from those outside a select group of civilian, government, and armed forces experts. For the past 30 years the United States and the Soviet Union have been developing and deploying satellites to perform two vital national defense missions: Treaty Monitoring and Force Enhance­ ment. The former mission, which relies upon a variety of surveillance techniques from space, is an integral part of global deterrence policies and has made possible the major arms control treaties of the past quarter century, e.g. the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the SALT I Treaty, and the ABM Treaty.

Force Enhancement refers to the ability of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of terrestrial armed forces. This largely is accomplished by improving the classic functions of command, control, communication, navigation, and weather forecasting. Terrestrial Force Enhancement by space resources is viewed not only as a necessity should deterrence fail but more importantly as an element which actually supports deterrence by strengthening the national defense capabilities of both superpowers. Consequently, contemporary military satellites are natural extensions of terrestrial military missions.

Since 1985 the Soviet Union has officially agreed that Force Enhancement systems as well as the previously recognized treaty monitoring (i.e., National Technical Means of Verification)· systems represent legit­ imate uses of Earth-orbiting satellites. Furthermore, to maintain her involvement in space for only peaceful purposes, the term militarization of space was redefined by the Soviets as the "creation, testing, and deployment of space offensive armaments". Today, no space-faring nation is known nor suspected of maintaining offensive armaments in space.

One of the greatest obstacles in the debate on military versus civilian space systems is-the often artificial distinctions made when assigning such labels. There is almost no system which does not have some military and civilian utility. Certainly, communications, naviga­ tion, surveillance, meteorological, and geodetic satellites can serve many programs. The Soviet Meteor weather satellites, which serve all Soviet national needs, are a prime example of the pragmatic view of space systems. Nominally civilian satellites, such as the French SPOT satellite, can be of great value in peacetime force characterization and in wartime strike assessments. Likewise, Soviet oceanographic satellites, designed primarily to aid merchant marine fleets operating near the polar regions, can just as easily be used to plot paths for nuclear submarines. Precision instrumentation needed to point orbiting astronomical platforms may prove beneficial when aiming laser communications satellites or other directed-energy platforms. Conversely,.the Vela satellites, which were designed for the express purpose of detecting nuclear detonations and monitoring the Limited Test Ban Treaty, have provided unexpected and . I

valuable insights into astrophysical phenomena.

The military versus civilian satellite issue is further obscured by decisions to conduct separate and largely redundant military and civilian programs in the same functional area. In the U.S., DOD's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) spacecraft not only fly in orbits quite similar to the civilian-sponsored National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites, but they also perform many of the same tasks and are even built by the same contractor. In a like manner, the Soviet Union operates two, virtually indistinguishable, low altitude navigation satellite systems: one acknowledged for use by the merchant marine and the other never officially recognized. Hence, the line between military and civilian satellite systems is more likely to be drawn for political or programatic reasons than for functional ones.

In the final analysis the United States and the Soviet Union perform the same military missions in space today - albeit with different design philosophies - and undoubtedly receive comparable returns. Despite the considerable investments by both superpowers in space systems, there remains no intrinsic value to these highly prized satellites. Their importance is determined solely in the context of terrestrial events. Although satellites reside in a vacuum, they rarely operate in one. JUL 13 '87 15:23 MDAC-HQ BLDG 107 P03

NIEMfS From MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CHARLES O. HALKER BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Charles D. Hal~er 1s special ass1stant to the pres1dent of McDonnell Douglas Astronautlcs Company for the space station program.

Hal~er was the f1r$t non-career, industry-sponsored astronaut, serv1ng as pay1oad spec1al1st on shuttle missions 12 1n September, 1984, 16 1n April, 1985 and 23 1n November, 1985. On those flights, Walker operated equipment des1gned by McDonnell Douglas for its biotechnology program named EOS. The EOS dev1ce, developed under a joint agreement between McConnell Douglas and NASA. produces large, pure quant1t1es of pharmaceuticals when operated 1n the weightlessness of space. As ch1ef test engineer for the EOS program, Walker had been 'nvolved v1th des,gn eng1neer1ng. development and space fl1ght test and evaluation of the EOS device. Walker has also been responsible for training other astronauts 1n the operation of the EOS device. Walker Joined Mc0onnel1 - Doug1as in 1977. H1s initial Assignment was that of test engineer on the aft propulsion subsystem for the space shuttle

orbi ten.

A nat1ve of Bedford, lnd1ana, Hal~er rece1ved hi~ undergraduate degree in aeronautical and astronaut1cal engineering from Purdue Univers1ty in 1971. He was awarded an honorary doctor of sc1ence from St. Louis Co11ege of Pharmacy

'" 1985. Prior to joining McOonneii Doug1as. WalKer was ! project engineer

with the Naval Sea Systems Command in ~omputer~controlled manuf~eturing systems.

,,, __ 1007 JUL 13 1 87 15:21 MDAC-HQ BLDG 107 P02

US/SOVI(l SPACE COMPARISON BRIEFING SPACE PROCESSING AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS

Presented by Charle~ D. Walker

Technologically space 1~ accessible, to the greete$t degree, by the Un1ted States and the Sov1et Un1on. With access to any environment comes efforts to apply that environment to societal and economic ends. Both of the or1g1na1 space-faring states have been ut111z1ng space for 1nterna1 econom1c advantage for mere than twenty years. But now the Soviet Union 1s market1ng 1ts capab11it1es 1nternat1ona11y. There is no reason to expect this 1conom1c and po1it1ca1 competition to slacken.

Conmunicat1ons relay satellites hove been orbited by the U.S. for eorrrnerc1a1 use since Telstar 1 1n 1962. For almost 15 years the U.S. government has failed to fund research that could later be used to advance conmerc1a1 conrnunicat1ons app1icat1ons. The Soviet Union, until th1s past year, has developed 1ts conmun1cations sate11ites for Soviet end Eastern B1otk country use only. It 1s now offering to 1aunch GORISOHT satellites on 1ts PROTON launch vehicle to any des1gnated geostationary orbital slot and lease the radio, telephone or telev1s1on transponders.

Remote sens~ng. observ1ng ~oil and rock gvology, water resources, ocean phenomena and more, has been developed by NASA under the Landsat program. In 1983 a Pres1dentia1 decision directed that the Landsat system be turned over to the private sector. Intonsistent Federal decisions have deiayed the success of that privatization and no advanced remote sensing system development 1s be1ng funded. European competition has surpassed the weak U.S. effort with the SPOT spacecraft. Now the Soviet Union is making muit1spectra1 photography from orb1t available 1nternationa1ly. The image resolution and pr1ces are compet1tive or better than the U.S. or Euro~e can offer. Perhaps the most populor promise of ipete-baied app11cat1ons 1s the technolo~y of processing mater1a1s 1n the un1que space environment. Both the U.S. and the USSR have flown exper1ments 1n the areas of b1olog1ea1s and pharmaceuticals, meta1 a11oys, e1ectron1c semiconductors and optical g1ass among others. The U.S. has orb1ted 1ess than SO space processing exper1ments. The Sov1et Union has flown over 1600. The U.S. has ut111zed on product on the earth -- m1cron-s1ze perfectly spher1ca1 p1ast1c beads for scientific and med1ca1 1nstrument calibration. The USSR has utilized bio1og1ca1 material 1n prepar1ng better 1nf1uenz~ vaccines and 1nfrared heat sensit1ve crystals for defense app11eations. The U.S. has plans for 11m1ted exper1ments on occasional space shuttle flights over the next 7 years with mostly outdated equipment. The Soviet '"• ..

Un1cn 1s now fly1ng aboard 1ts pennanent1y orb1t1ng space station. M1r, space process1ng equ1pment. The U.S. space station w111 not be ava1iab1e unt11 1994. A sma11er orbiting faci11ty offered by private U.S. industry may be on orbit 1n 1992. And the USSR through 1ts martet1ng and 11cens1ng organizations. GLAVKOSMOS and V/0 LICENSINTORG, are offer1ng 1nternat1ona1 use of 1ts orb1t1ng fac11it1es and equipment. In 11ke manner the Sov1et Un1on 1s mak1ng s1x c1asses of 1ts 1aunch veh1c1es avai1ab1e to 1nternationa1 customers in need of sate11ite boosters. The veh1c1es have proven capability which the Sov1ets have only very recently been open 1n discussing. Wh11e the U.S. has long offered comnerc1a1 iaunch services which today include three proven veh1cles and a small number of unflown boosters only the USSR has guaranteed control over pad ava11abi1ity and some 11ab111ty coverage concerns to offer 1ts customers. To date 1nst1tut1onal skept1c1sm, po11t1cai ret1cence and concerns over pay1oad technology transfer have stood ~n the way of launch agreements. But because of the pol1t1cal and eventually l1ke1y technolog1ca1 payoffs we can expect to see the USSR persevere. Taken 1n total 1t 1s clear that the Sov1et Union has a deep 1nterna1 conrnitment to apply the un1que qua11t1es of the space environment to the1r economic and pol1t1ca1 benefit. It should be viewed as disturbing that Sov1et off1c1els are also pronouncing that space can be ut111zed for a profit.

•