mNo edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit
|
m Tense agreement (search -> searched)
|
||
(33 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | {{Short description|Chinese failed satellite launch in 1996}}{{Unreliable sources|date=November 2020}} |
||
{{Multiple issues| |
|||
{{Unreliable sources|date=November 2020}} |
|||
{{Citation style|date=November 2020}} |
|||
}} |
|||
⚫ | {{Short description|Chinese failed satellite launch in 1996}} |
||
{{Use British English|date=January 2021}} |
{{Use British English|date=January 2021}} |
||
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2021}} |
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2021}} |
||
{{Infobox spaceflight |
{{Infobox spaceflight |
||
| name = Intelsat 708 |
| name = Intelsat 708 |
||
| names_list = IS 708<br/> |
| names_list = IS 708<br/> |
||
| image |
| image = |
||
| image_caption = The [[Long March 3B]] rocket carrying the Intelsat 708 satellite begins to deviate from its course immediately after launch. |
| image_caption = The [[Long March 3B]] rocket carrying the Intelsat 708 satellite begins to deviate from its course immediately after launch. |
||
| image_size = 300px |
| image_size = 300px |
||
| mission_type = [[Communications satellite|Communications]] |
|||
| |
| operator = [[Intelsat]] |
||
| |
| COSPAR_ID = |
||
| |
| SATCAT = |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
| launch_mass = {{cvt|4180|kg}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
| dimensions = |
|||
⚫ | |||
| |
| power = <!-- [[watt]]s --> |
||
| |
| launch_date = 15 February 1996 03:00 |
||
| |
| launch_rocket = [[Long March 3B]] |
||
⚫ | | launch_site = [[Xichang Satellite Launch Center|Xichang]], [[Xichang Launch Complex 2|LC-2]] |
||
⚫ | | launch_contractor = [[China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation|China Great Wall Industry Corporation]] |
||
| launch_date = 15 February 1996, 19:01:00 [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] |
|||
| |
| orbit_reference = [[Geocentric orbit]] (planned) |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | | launch_site = [[Xichang Satellite Launch Center|Xichang]], [[Xichang Launch Complex 2|LC-2]] |
||
| orbit_longitude = |
|||
⚫ | | launch_contractor = [[China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation|China Great Wall Industry Corporation]] |
||
| orbit_slot = |
|||
⚫ | |||
| orbit_reference = [[Geocentric orbit]] (planned) |
|||
⚫ | | trans_band = 26 [[C band (IEEE)|C-band]]<br/>14 [[Ku band|Ku-band]] |
||
⚫ | |||
| |
| trans_frequency = |
||
| |
| trans_bandwidth = |
||
| |
| trans_capacity = |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | | trans_band = 26 [[C band (IEEE)|C-band]]<br/>14 [[Ku band|Ku-band]] |
||
| |
| trans_EIRP = |
||
| |
| trans_HPBW = |
||
| |
| programme = ''Intelsat VII'' |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
| programme = ''Intelsat VII'' |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
}} |
}} |
||
'''Intelsat 708''' was a [[telecommunications satellite]] built by the American company [[Space Systems/Loral]] for [[Intelsat]]. It was destroyed on 15 February 1996 when the [[Long March 3B]] [[launch vehicle]] failed while being launched from the [[Xichang Satellite Launch Center]] in [[People's Republic of China|China]]. The launch vehicle veered off course immediately after liftoff and struck a nearby village, |
'''Intelsat 708''' was a [[telecommunications satellite]] built by the American company [[Space Systems/Loral]] for [[Intelsat]]. It was destroyed on 15 February 1996 when the [[Long March 3B]] [[launch vehicle]] failed while being launched from the [[Xichang Satellite Launch Center]] in [[People's Republic of China|China]]. The launch vehicle veered off course immediately after liftoff and struck a nearby village, killing at least six people. |
||
The accident investigation identified a failure in the guidance system of the Long March 3B. After the Intelsat 708 accident, the [[Long March (rocket family)|Long March rockets]] |
The accident investigation identified a failure in the guidance system of the Long March 3B. After the Intelsat 708 accident, the [[Long March (rocket family)|Long March rockets]] did not experience another mission failure until 2011. However, the participation of American companies in the Intelsat 708 and [[Apstar 2]] investigations caused political controversy in the [[United States]]. A U.S. government investigation found that the information in the report had been illegally transferred to China. Satellite technology was subsequently reclassified as a munition and placed under [[International Traffic in Arms Regulations#Satellite components|ITAR restrictions]], blocking its export to China. In 2002, Space Systems/Loral paid {{Currency|20 million|USD|passthrough=yes}} to settle charges of violating [[export controls]].<ref name="zinger2014"/> |
||
== Launch failure == |
== Launch failure == |
||
In 1992 and 1993, [[Space Systems/Loral]] received licenses from the [[United States Department of State]] to launch [[Intelsat]] satellites on Chinese rockets. At that time, satellite components were still under [[International Traffic in Arms Regulations]] (ITAR); they would be transferred in stages to the [[United States Department of Commerce|U.S. Department of Commerce]] between 1992 and 1996.<ref name="zinger2014">{{ |
In 1992 and 1993, [[Space Systems/Loral]] received licenses from the [[United States Department of State]] to launch [[Intelsat]] satellites on Chinese rockets. At that time, satellite components were still under [[International Traffic in Arms Regulations]] (ITAR); they would be transferred in stages to the [[United States Department of Commerce|U.S. Department of Commerce]] between 1992 and 1996.<ref name="zinger2014">{{Cite journal |last1=Zinger |first1=Kurtis J. |date=26 October 2014 |title=An Overreaction that Destroyed an Industry: The Past, Present, and Future of U.S. Satellite Export Controls |url=http://lawreview.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/13.-86.1-Zinger_Final.pdf |url-status=live |journal=University of Colorado Law Review |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230920194824/http://lawreview.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/13.-86.1-Zinger_Final.pdf |archive-date=20 September 2023 }}</ref> The Intelsat 708 satellite was to be launched into geostationary orbit aboard a [[Long March 3B]] launch vehicle. |
||
On 15 February 1996, the |
On 15 February 1996, the Long March 3B launch vehicle failed during launch, veering off course immediately after liftoff and crashing into a village near the launch site (probably Mayelin Village).<ref name="ChenLan2">{{Cite web |last=Lan |first=Chen |date=8 July 2013 |title=Mist around the CZ-3B disaster, Part 2 |url=https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2326/1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140831221614/http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2326/1 |archive-date=31 August 2014 |publisher=The Space Review }}</ref> An enormous explosion destroyed most of the rocket and killed an unknown number of inhabitants.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/coxreport/body/ch6bod.html|title=Satellite Launches in the PRC|access-date=23 May 2012 |author=Select Committee of the United States House of Representatives|date=3 January 1999|publisher=U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110020454/http://www.house.gov/coxreport/body/ch6bod.html|archive-date=10 November 2005|url-status=dead}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> |
||
The nature and extent of the damage remain a subject of dispute. The Chinese government, through its official [[Xinhua]] news agency, reported that six people were killed and 57 injured. |
The nature and extent of the damage remain a subject of dispute. The Chinese government, through its official [[Xinhua]] news agency, reported that six people were killed and 57 injured. Western media speculated that between a few dozen and 500 people might have been killed in the crash; "dozens, if not hundreds" of people were seen to gather outside the centre's main gate near the crash site the night before launch.<ref name="ChenLan1"/> When reporters were being taken away from the site, they found that most buildings had sustained serious damage or had been flattened completely.<ref name="ChenLan1">{{Cite web |last=Lan |first=Chen |date=1 July 2013 |title=Mist around the CZ-3B disaster, Part 1 |url=https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2323/1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140118074016/http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2323/1 |archive-date=18 January 2014 |access-date=18 January 2014 |publisher=The Space Review }}</ref> Some eyewitnesses were noted as having seen dozens of ambulances and many flatbed trucks, loaded with what could have been human remains, being taken to the local hospital.<ref name="ChenLan1"/> |
||
Bruce Campbell of [[Astrotech Corporation|Astrotech]] and other American eyewitnesses in Xichang reported that the satellite post-crash was surprisingly intact, along with the opinion that the official death toll only reflects those in the military who were caught by the disaster and not the civilian population. In the years to follow, the village that used to border the launch center has vanished with little trace it ever existed.<ref name="zak2013">{{ |
Bruce Campbell of [[Astrotech Corporation|Astrotech]] and other American eyewitnesses in Xichang reported that the satellite post-crash was surprisingly intact, along with the opinion that the official death toll only reflects those in the military who were caught by the disaster and not the civilian population. In the years to follow, the village that used to border the launch center has vanished, with little trace it ever existed.<ref name="zak2013">{{Cite magazine |last1=Zak |first1=Anatoly |date=February 2013 |title=Disaster at Xichang |url=http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/disaster-at-xichang-2873673/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220118235406/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/disaster-at-xichang-2873673/ |archive-date=18 January 2022 |magazine=[[Air & Space/Smithsonian|Air & Space Magazine]] }}</ref> However, Chen Lan writing in ''The Space Review'' later said the total population of the village was under 1000, and that most if not all of the population had been evacuated before launch as had been common practice since the 1980s, making it "very unlikely" that there were hundreds of deaths.<ref name="ChenLan2"/> |
||
== Investigation == |
== Investigation == |
||
After the launch failure, the Chinese investigation found that the [[inertial measurement unit]] had failed. However, the [[satellite insurance]] companies insisted on an Independent Review Committee (IRC) as a condition of providing insurance for future Chinese satellite launches. Loral, [[Hughes Aircraft Company#Hughes Space and Communications Group|Hughes]], and other U.S. aerospace companies participated in the Review Committee, which issued a report in May 1996 that identified a different cause of the failure in the [[inertial measurement unit]]. The Chinese report was then changed to match the findings of the Review Committee.<ref name="zinger2014"/> |
After the launch failure, the Chinese investigation found that the [[inertial measurement unit]] had failed. However, the [[satellite insurance]] companies insisted on an Independent Review Committee (IRC) as a condition of providing insurance for future Chinese satellite launches. Loral, [[Hughes Aircraft Company#Hughes Space and Communications Group|Hughes]], and other U.S. aerospace companies participated in the Review Committee, which issued a report in May 1996 that identified a different cause of the failure in the [[inertial measurement unit]]. The Chinese report was then changed to match the findings of the Review Committee.<ref name="zinger2014"/> The Long March rocket family did not experience another mission failure until August 2011. |
||
In 1997, the U.S. Defense Technology Security Administration found that China had obtained "significant benefit" from the Review Committee and could improve their "launch vehicles ... ballistic missiles and in particular their guidance systems". In 1998, the U.S. Congress reclassified satellite technology as a munition that was subject to ITAR, returning export control from the Commerce Department to the State Department. In 2002, Loral paid |
In 1997, the [[Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs|U.S. Defense Technology Security Administration]] found that China had obtained "significant benefit" from the Review Committee and could improve their "launch vehicles ... ballistic missiles and in particular their guidance systems". In 1998, the U.S. Congress reclassified satellite technology as a munition that was subject to ITAR, returning export control from the Commerce Department to the State Department. In 2002, Loral paid {{Currency|20 million|USD|passthrough=yes}} in fines and compliance expenses to settle allegations of violating export control regulations.<ref name="zinger2014"/>{{Rp|page=366}} |
||
No export licenses to China have been issued since 1996, and an official at the [[Bureau of Industry and Security]] emphasized in 2016 that "no U.S.-origin content, regardless of significance, regardless of whether it's incorporated into a foreign-made item, can go to China".<ref name="selding2016">{{ |
No export licenses to China have been issued since 1996, and an official at the [[Bureau of Industry and Security]] emphasized in 2016 that "no U.S.-origin content, regardless of significance, regardless of whether it's incorporated into a foreign-made item, can go to China".<ref name="selding2016">{{Cite news |last1=de Selding |first1=Peter B. |date=14 April 2016 |title=U.S. ITAR satellite export regime's effects still strong in Europe |url=https://spacenews.com/u-s-itar-satellite-export-regimes-effects-still-strong-in-europe/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240201155607/https://spacenews.com/u-s-itar-satellite-export-regimes-effects-still-strong-in-europe/ |archive-date=1 February 2024 |work=[[SpaceNews]] }}</ref> |
||
Intelsat 708 contained sophisticated communications and [[encryption]] technology. Members of the Loral security team |
Intelsat 708 contained sophisticated communications and [[encryption]] technology. Members of the Loral security team searched the toxic environment around the crash site to recover sensitive components, returning with complaints of bulging eyes and severe headaches requiring [[oxygen therapy]]. They were initially reported by the [[United States Department of Defense|U.S. Department of Defense]] monitor to have succeeded in recovering "the [satellite's] encryption-decryption equipment".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch7.html|title=U.S. House COX report, Chapter 7 Contents|access-date=10 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161021092423/http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch7.html|archive-date=21 October 2016|url-status=dead}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> The most sensitive FAC-3R circuit boards were not recovered, but "were mounted near the hydrazine propellant tanks and most likely were destroyed in the explosion... Because the FAC-3R boards on Intelsat 708 were uniquely keyed, the [[National Security Agency]] (NSA) remains convinced that there is no risk to other satellite systems, now or in the future, resulting from having not recovering the FAC-3R boards from the PRC".<ref>{{Cite web |title=U.S. House COX report, Chapter 6 |url=http://www.house.gov/coxreport/body/ch6bod.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110020454/http://www.house.gov/coxreport/body/ch6bod.html |archive-date=10 November 2005 |publisher=Select Committee of the United States House of Representatives }} {{PD-notice}}</ref> |
||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
{{Portal|Spaceflight}} |
{{Portal|Spaceflight}} |
||
* [[Nedelin disaster]] |
* [[Nedelin disaster]] – a launch catastrophe at the [[Baikonur Cosmodrome|Baikonur test range]] in the [[Soviet Union]]. |
||
⚫ | * [[List of Proton launches (2010–2019)#2013|Proton-M/DM-03 8K82 km/11S861-03]] –a[[Proton (rocket family)|Proton]] launch vehicle that went out of control and flew horizontally before crashing. |
||
⚫ |
* [[List of Proton launches (2010–2019)#2013|Proton-M/DM-03 8K82 km/11S861-03]] |
||
* Explosion of [[SpaceX]] [[Falcon 9 Full Thrust|Falcon 9]] rocket with [[Amos-6]] satellite onboard due to failure during propellant filling procedures prior to a [[static fire]] test on 1 September 2016. |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Line 85: | Line 73: | ||
* {{cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/coxreport/body/ch6bod.html|title=Satellite Launches in the PRC|access-date=30 June 2007|author=Select Committee of the United States House of Representatives|date=3 January 1999|publisher=U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110020454/http://www.house.gov/coxreport/body/ch6bod.html |archive-date=10 November 2005|url-status=dead}} {{PD-notice}} (Congressional report discussing Intelsat 708 launch failure and possible technology transfer) |
* {{cite web|url=http://www.house.gov/coxreport/body/ch6bod.html|title=Satellite Launches in the PRC|access-date=30 June 2007|author=Select Committee of the United States House of Representatives|date=3 January 1999|publisher=U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051110020454/http://www.house.gov/coxreport/body/ch6bod.html |archive-date=10 November 2005|url-status=dead}} {{PD-notice}} (Congressional report discussing Intelsat 708 launch failure and possible technology transfer) |
||
* {{cite web|url=http://www.softwar.net/hughes2.html|title=2002 State Department Charge Letter to Hughes|access-date=30 June 2007|year=2005|publisher=Softwar|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030206212818/http://softwar.net/hughes2.html|archive-date=6 February 2003|url-status=dead}} (Documents on Intelsat 708 and export controls, including State Department letter charging two companies with export law violations) |
* {{cite web|url=http://www.softwar.net/hughes2.html|title=2002 State Department Charge Letter to Hughes|access-date=30 June 2007|year=2005|publisher=Softwar|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030206212818/http://softwar.net/hughes2.html|archive-date=6 February 2003|url-status=dead}} (Documents on Intelsat 708 and export controls, including State Department letter charging two companies with export law violations) |
||
* {{cite web|url=http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/Disaster-at-Xichang-187496561.html|title=Disaster at Xichang|access-date=22 April 2013|author=Anatoly Zak|date=February 2013|magazine=Air & Space Magazine}} (Article on the crash of a rocket carrying a commercial payload on 15 February 1996) |
* {{cite web|url=http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/Disaster-at-Xichang-187496561.html|title=Disaster at Xichang|access-date=22 April 2013|author=Anatoly Zak|date=February 2013|magazine=Air & Space Magazine}} (Article on the crash of a rocket carrying a commercial payload on 15 February 1996) |
||
* {{cite news|url=http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/archive/38299.shtml|title=Cox report a complete fabrication|access-date=30 June 2007|date=16 July 1999|newspaper=China Daily|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070328035707/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/archive/38299.shtml|archive-date=28 March 2007|url-status=dead}} (Chinese government report disputing conclusions of U.S. Congressional report) |
* {{cite news|url=http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/archive/38299.shtml|title=Cox report a complete fabrication|access-date=30 June 2007|date=16 July 1999|newspaper=China Daily|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070328035707/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/archive/38299.shtml|archive-date=28 March 2007|url-status=dead}} (Chinese government report disputing conclusions of U.S. Congressional report) |
||
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOtSwQkybVw Video of launch, impact and view of destruction of town by resulting explosion.] |
|||
== External links == |
== External links == |
||
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek |
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ9ue6GKek Raw footage of the disaster] |
||
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZTFgZ9zl74&t=170s Extra footage of the disaster] (in YouTube) |
|||
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= |
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOtSwQkybVw Video of the launch, impact, and viewofthe resulting explosion] (inYouTube) |
||
{{Intelsat}} |
{{Intelsat}} |
||
Line 106: | Line 88: | ||
[[Category:Satellite launch failures]] |
[[Category:Satellite launch failures]] |
||
[[Category:Space program fatalities]] |
[[Category:Space program fatalities]] |
||
[[Category:Filmed accidental deaths]] |
|||
[[Category:Spacecraft launched in 1996]] |
[[Category:Spacecraft launched in 1996]] |
||
[[Category:Intelsat satellites]] |
[[Category:Intelsat satellites]] |
Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed. (November 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Names | IS 708 |
---|---|
Mission type | Communications |
Operator | Intelsat |
Mission duration | 15 years (planned) Failed to orbit |
Spacecraft properties | |
Spacecraft type | Intelsat VII-A |
Bus | LS-1300 |
Manufacturer | Space Systems/Loral |
Launch mass | 4,180 kg (9,220 lb) |
Start of mission | |
Launch date | 15 February 1996 03:00 |
Rocket | Long March 3B |
Launch site | Xichang, LC-2 |
Contractor | China Great Wall Industry Corporation |
Orbital parameters | |
Reference system | Geocentric orbit (planned) |
Regime | Geostationary orbit |
Transponders | |
Band | 26C-band 14Ku-band |
Intelsat VII
|
Intelsat 708 was a telecommunications satellite built by the American company Space Systems/Loral for Intelsat. It was destroyed on 15 February 1996 when the Long March 3B launch vehicle failed while being launched from the Xichang Satellite Launch CenterinChina. The launch vehicle veered off course immediately after liftoff and struck a nearby village, killing at least six people.
The accident investigation identified a failure in the guidance system of the Long March 3B. After the Intelsat 708 accident, the Long March rockets did not experience another mission failure until 2011. However, the participation of American companies in the Intelsat 708 and Apstar 2 investigations caused political controversy in the United States. A U.S. government investigation found that the information in the report had been illegally transferred to China. Satellite technology was subsequently reclassified as a munition and placed under ITAR restrictions, blocking its export to China. In 2002, Space Systems/Loral paid US$20 million to settle charges of violating export controls.[1]
In 1992 and 1993, Space Systems/Loral received licenses from the United States Department of State to launch Intelsat satellites on Chinese rockets. At that time, satellite components were still under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR); they would be transferred in stages to the U.S. Department of Commerce between 1992 and 1996.[1] The Intelsat 708 satellite was to be launched into geostationary orbit aboard a Long March 3B launch vehicle.
On 15 February 1996, the Long March 3B launch vehicle failed during launch, veering off course immediately after liftoff and crashing into a village near the launch site (probably Mayelin Village).[2] An enormous explosion destroyed most of the rocket and killed an unknown number of inhabitants.[3]
The nature and extent of the damage remain a subject of dispute. The Chinese government, through its official Xinhua news agency, reported that six people were killed and 57 injured. Western media speculated that between a few dozen and 500 people might have been killed in the crash; "dozens, if not hundreds" of people were seen to gather outside the centre's main gate near the crash site the night before launch.[4] When reporters were being taken away from the site, they found that most buildings had sustained serious damage or had been flattened completely.[4] Some eyewitnesses were noted as having seen dozens of ambulances and many flatbed trucks, loaded with what could have been human remains, being taken to the local hospital.[4]
Bruce Campbell of Astrotech and other American eyewitnesses in Xichang reported that the satellite post-crash was surprisingly intact, along with the opinion that the official death toll only reflects those in the military who were caught by the disaster and not the civilian population. In the years to follow, the village that used to border the launch center has vanished, with little trace it ever existed.[5] However, Chen Lan writing in The Space Review later said the total population of the village was under 1000, and that most if not all of the population had been evacuated before launch as had been common practice since the 1980s, making it "very unlikely" that there were hundreds of deaths.[2]
After the launch failure, the Chinese investigation found that the inertial measurement unit had failed. However, the satellite insurance companies insisted on an Independent Review Committee (IRC) as a condition of providing insurance for future Chinese satellite launches. Loral, Hughes, and other U.S. aerospace companies participated in the Review Committee, which issued a report in May 1996 that identified a different cause of the failure in the inertial measurement unit. The Chinese report was then changed to match the findings of the Review Committee.[1] The Long March rocket family did not experience another mission failure until August 2011.
In 1997, the U.S. Defense Technology Security Administration found that China had obtained "significant benefit" from the Review Committee and could improve their "launch vehicles ... ballistic missiles and in particular their guidance systems". In 1998, the U.S. Congress reclassified satellite technology as a munition that was subject to ITAR, returning export control from the Commerce Department to the State Department. In 2002, Loral paid US$20 million in fines and compliance expenses to settle allegations of violating export control regulations.[1]: 366
No export licenses to China have been issued since 1996, and an official at the Bureau of Industry and Security emphasized in 2016 that "no U.S.-origin content, regardless of significance, regardless of whether it's incorporated into a foreign-made item, can go to China".[6]
Intelsat 708 contained sophisticated communications and encryption technology. Members of the Loral security team searched the toxic environment around the crash site to recover sensitive components, returning with complaints of bulging eyes and severe headaches requiring oxygen therapy. They were initially reported by the U.S. Department of Defense monitor to have succeeded in recovering "the [satellite's] encryption-decryption equipment".[7] The most sensitive FAC-3R circuit boards were not recovered, but "were mounted near the hydrazine propellant tanks and most likely were destroyed in the explosion... Because the FAC-3R boards on Intelsat 708 were uniquely keyed, the National Security Agency (NSA) remains convinced that there is no risk to other satellite systems, now or in the future, resulting from having not recovering the FAC-3R boards from the PRC".[8]
| |
---|---|
| |
Intelsat I, II, III |
|
Intelsat IV |
|
Intelsat V |
|
Intelsat VI |
|
Intelsat 7-10 |
|
ex-PanAmSat |
|
Recent Intelsat |
|
Galaxy (Intelsat Americas) |
|
Other |
|
| |
---|---|
January |
|
February |
|
March |
|
April |
|
May |
|
June |
|
July |
|
August |
|
September |
|
October |
|
November |
|
December |
|
Launches are separated by dots ( • ), payloads by commas ( , ), multiple names for the same satellite by slashes ( / ). |