476 



190 Walter A. McDougall 



annual budgets be approved by both a two-thirds majority and by 

 countries whose total contributions constituted 85 percent of the 

 budget. But how would contributions be distributed? Tortuous costing 

 of the planned rocket stages produced a £70 million project, 38.8 

 percent of which was Britain's responsibility, 23.9 for France, 22.0 for 

 Germany, 9.8 for Italy, and the remainder for the others. But the costs 

 of each stage were as uncertain as cost overruns were predictable. 

 These and other sources of discord hung over the ELDO convention 

 signed in 1962. 



Meanwhile, European scientists led by Eduardi Amalfi, Pierre Au- 

 ger, and Sir Harrie Massie took the initiative in space science. The 

 "brain drain" of European talent to the United States was the academic 

 equivalent of the "technology gap" that the scientists hoped to stem 

 through a European space science program. Working separately from 

 those discussing launch-vehicle development, delegations from ten 

 countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Nether- 

 lands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom), founded the 

 European Space Research Organization (ESRO), also in 1962. ESRO 

 dedicated itself to peaceful purposes only, free exchange of informa- 

 tion, and joint construction of satellites and experiments for launch by 

 NASA and eventually by ELDO. Again, at French insistence, members 

 were released from the obligation of sharing data "obtained outside the 

 organization." The ESRO convention provided for a European Space 

 Technology Center (eventually based at Noordwijk, the Netherlands), 

 a European Space Data Center (later the Space Operations Center) for 

 telemetry and tracking (Darmstadt, West Germany), a sounding rocket 

 range (Kiruna, Sweden), and a headquarters (Paris). ESRO had less 

 difficulty than ELDO with procedure: each state received one vote, 

 with most issues decided by simple majority. The budget would be 

 voted by a two-thirds majority every three years, with national con- 

 tributions fixed in proportion to the net national income of the mem- 

 ber state. Projected spending for the first eight years was a mere $306 

 million.'^ 



Politically, these numbers were acceptable: some half a billion dollars 

 for ESRO and ELDO divided among several countries over six to eight 

 years. This was hardly an excessive entry fee into the postindustrial 

 world. But was it enough? By the middle of the decade the United 

 States would be spending $5 billion per year on civilian space technol- 



''On the origins of ESRO and ELDO, see: U.S. Senate. Committee on Aeronautical 

 and Space Sciences, Intenmtional Cooperation ami Organitatum for Outer Space , 89th Cong., 

 1st sess. (196.')). pp. 103-17; U.S. Congress, World Wide Space Pro-ams, pp. 237-77; 

 Thomson. La Politique spatiale de I'Europe, vol. 2, La Cooperation europeenne, chap. 3; Alain 

 Diipas, La Lutte pour I'espace (Paris, 1977), chap. 10. 



