INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON THE SPACE STATION PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92B00181R001901720047-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 14, 2012
• Sequence Number: 47
• Publication Date: March 26, 1984
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/03/14 :CIA-RDP92B00181 8001901720047-0
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D C. 20230
March 26, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR J. M. Poindexter
Deputy Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
SUBJECT: International Cooperation on the Space
Station Program (C)
s you requested, I am ~,~~ Qn the
_ ~~~ s~lles
~:1~~ltwiL#Oliil COOY! ifs: '_" ~ lflia-f~!'~A/'a~ Theses are
aspects of the recommended strategy that cause me concern. (C)
? The strategy is reactive rather than a statement of what the
U.S. wants to accomplish. I believe that we will be more
likely to advance our own interests if we agree before the
London summit on what we are and are not prepared to offer
other countries. (C)
? The contributions of the other countries are identified
as additive to the $8 Billion cost of the shuttle. I
thought one of the benefits of international cooperation
would be to reduce the burden on the U.S. budget. (C)
? The proposed strategy puts foreign countries in direct
competition with U.S. industry. The non-core types of
items advanced for the other countries--e.g., a polar
platform for earth remote sensing, materials processing
and life sciences--are the same opportunities that we
all hope the U.S. industry will invest in. Very few
U.S. firms are prepared to compete head to head with
Japan, Germany and France. (C)
? The government to government operating approach suggested
will tend to relegate U.S. industry to the role of supply
contractor rather than investor. Government to government
agreements, with bilateral bureaucracies to perpetuate
them, build the bureaucracy will not leave room for
independent investment by U.S. firms. We recommend
consideration of U.S. company to foreign company colla-
borations. Such an approach, in addition to drawing U.S.
firms more deeply into the planning process, could also
have the desirable effect of reversing the flow of
technology. (C)
~~~ ~ Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/03/14 :CIA-RDP92B001818001901720047-0
 _.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/03/14 :CIA-RDP92B00181 8001901720047-0
? Decisions on foreign cooperation on the Space Station should be
based in part on the likely impact on international trade.
To my knowledge, no such analysis is being attempted. (C)
? Most U.S. firms with the exception of a few selected aerospace
companies are likely to have negative reactions to the draft
strategy, indeed to any strategy, if their role is not defined
with equal emphasis before the foreign role is defined. For
example, committing to allow foreign countries to participate
in space station design planning when no such commitment is made
to U.S. industry communicates a sense of priority that I am
sure is not intended. (C)
To summarize, I think that we must take the interests of U.S. industry
into account in formulating our international cooperation strategy.
This draft does not take U.S. commercial interests into account. (C)
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/03/14 :CIA-RDP92B00181 8001901720047-0