The Benefits of Collaboration: What the. United States Could Offer

The uproar over launcher availability crowded out ongoing discussions at the technical level over the modalities of European collaboration in the post-Apollo program. Three possibilities were on the table: (1) the space tug (figure 5.1) that would ferry satellites from the shuttle’s low-earth orbit to other, notably geo­stationary orbits; (2) experimental modules for the station or the shuttle (Sortie Cans or RAMs); and (3) the construction of components of the orbiter itself.

Frutkin and other senior NASA personnel discussed these matters on February 1, 1971.25 They concluded that a reusable tug was “the most valu­able and desirable element the Europeans could contribute to the post-Apollo program.” It was “an essential element which cannot be undertaken directly by NASA for a number of years.” For financial reasons, in the short term the agency would probably have to use expendable adaptations of the Centaur or Atlas rockets for tug missions. If Europe built a tug and had it ready by 1979, the United States could take advantage of that alternative. Even though the tug

Figure 5.1 The space tug concept.

Source: Technology Transfer in the Post Apollo Program. NASA HQ MF71-6399, 7-27-71, Record Group NASA 255, Box 14 Folder II. H, WNRC. Permission: NASA.

was a big step forward, the advanced technology that it required—in structure, propulsion, and controls—was probably within European capabilities, and could productively feed back into NASA’s work. Interfaces would be clean, manage­ment simplified, and, in the event of failure, delays, or overruns, the impact on shuttle development would be minimal. The USAF’s attitude was the only “major uncertainty,” but it was felt that this was not an “unmovable obstacle,” if only because the Air Force might not get funding for its own tug and could probably manufacture a tug developed abroad if it needed one.

Frutkin and his colleagues viewed the manufacture Sortie Cans or RAMs as the next best task, for the same reasons as the tug. The least desirable contribu­tion was selected elements and structures for the orbiter itself. Technology trans­fer was a major concern here, even though US industry had identified excellent possibilities for subcontracting elements of the orbiter to European sources. If a single European firm made a critical item, like the vertical tail, it would obtain “proportionately more in general knowledge about the STS system than could be justified by the depth and amount of contributions to the program.”

These ideas were presented to a joint meeting of experts from February 16 to 18. The leaders of the European delegation, Causse and Dinkespiler, were extremely impressed with the clarity of the presentations made by NASA.26 The cross-range requirements for the shuttle, and their implications, were spelt out in detail. The plans for the station were explained, and the importance of RAMs emphasized. A mission model for the use of the shuttle covering all payloads was also presented. Some 60 flights per year from 1980 onward were foreseen; the tug was needed for about two-thirds of them. NASA’s preference for Europe to build the tug or a RAM that could be used with the station or with the shuttle alone was stressed. Its concerns about subcontracting out parts of the
orbiter were emphasized.27 One issue on which all agreed—Low, Johnson, and Lefevre—was that collaboration should be in a multilateral framework. This was to simplify management, to pressure European nations to work together, and to stop individual countries from signing bilateral agreements with NASA to the benefit of their home industry.