No doubt many of you noticed the Reuters article published Friday that cited a Chinese source who claimed that China was planning a manned lunar mission by 2017. There are a number of flaws in the article: it was published in a relatively minor publication, the “Southern Metropolis News”, and cited a Chinese scientist, Ouyang Ziyuan, who previously claimed that China was planning a manned mission by 2010 only to later say he was misquoted and that a manned mission would come only after 2020. (Ouyang, involved in China’s robotic lunar program, arguably doesn’t speak for China’s manned space program any more than Robert Zubrin speaks for NASA when he says the space agency could send humans to Mars by 2016.) Nonetheless, this article may be used by some in the US as a sign that the country needs to accelerate the Vision for Space Exploration lest we be “beat” back to the Moon.
This episode serves as an introduction to an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review by Dwayne Day, who reports on a recent conference on China’s space program in Washington. The article notes that China’s space program is as misunderstood in the US as the American space program is misunderstood in China. The Chinese government had hoped that the launch of Shenzhou 5 two years ago, the country’s first manned mission, would open the door to cooperation with the US, only to find that American obstacles to cooperation were political in nature (like human rights issues and Taiwan.) Quote: “The Chinese believe that space cooperation could help improve relations between the two countries. They view it as a steppingstone toward better understanding. In contrast, the American government believes that cooperation can only occur after the political relationship between the two countries has improved.”
There are a lot of interesting insights in the article about how the US views China’s space program, and vice versa. It also deflates a lot of the rhetoric about a potential race to the Moon between the two countries, including opposition to human spaceflight within China itself. However, it also shows that there are significant obstacles to any future cooperation between the two countries in space.
Those obsticles include China’s military build up, it’s drive for super power status (which includes supplanting our own), and its record of human rights violations. I think Dwayne’s analysis falls down, as did attempts to explain the behavior of previous tyrannical regimes, by ignoring those inconvenient facts.
It’s a bit frightening to think anyone would think something as trivial as China following in Russia and our 40 year old footprints, would blind us to Chinas brutailty, and economic and military agression (ranging from driving tanks over protestors to threatening to H-Bomb L.A.). Do they really think we’re that shallow and amora? Not to mention stupid!
In the face of many bad reasons to continue the space station, its one good use would be to send some Chinese “taikonauts” up to it. The main source of tension between the US and China is China’s heavy-handed, neo-Communist leadership, which is an irrational situation (for China). Irrational problems merit irrational solutions.
The gist of the comments so far on this page are that since China is run by bad people, bad relations are good and good relations are bad. If only life were that simple. The US may be a superpower, but it is not the world’s school principal. It cannot expect to improve China just by frowning at it. Or by threatening it — China is too powerful for that — although drawing lines in the sand does have its uses. The only way forward is to engage China, an insight that Wal-Mart understands better than Washington does.
Indeed, the easiest way for the United States to squander its influence is by pretending that it really is the world’s school principal. There has been all too much of that lately.
Greg, so has said every advocate of appeasement throughout history.
Oh, since Dwyane suggested that the Shenzhou program was ineffecient and corrupt, I did some research. The Shenzhou Program has cost about two billion dollars over the past ten years. I wonder what one would say about NASA is it could achieve that leval of ineffeciency and corruption.
I said engagement, not appeasement. There’s a difference between the two. Although that’s exactly the bad attitude in Washington these days. It’s the school principal who thinks that anything that makes the schoolyard toughs happy is an act of appeasement.
Anyone who has been to a Wal-Mart lately should know the difference between that and reality. They might as well write “made in China” under the “Wal-Mart” sign outside. I don’t know how anyone can think that Wal-Mart is a good thing, but China is evil incarnate.
This is not the world of the Munich Agreement.
Even if the U.S. were the school principal of the world, as it was briefly in the 1940s, we would sacrifice nothing by letting Chinese taikonauts onto the space station. It’s not a military base. The space station is pure symbolism, and even as a symbol its value is plunging.
If we cannot cooperate with the Chinese on ISS why should we buy their clothing?
On Ouyang Ziyuan:
http://www.chinavitae.com/biography_display.php?id=1025
“In recent years, he actively participated and guided the preparation of short-term objectives and long-term plans for moon exploration by the Chinese and served as chief scientist to the Chinese moon exploration plan.”
If he doesn’t speak for the program I’d expect him to know what’s going on as the ex-chief scientist and someone who had been part of the planning process.
An historian at Space Today has been piecing together the overall picture:
http://www.spacetoday.org/China/ChinaMoonflight.html
The station and lunar launcher programs still await central government approval. We’ll see.
Oh, and I should add that the US was mean not to include China in the ISS effort. They should reverse that decision.
Greg, so has said every advocate of appeasement throughout history.
Keep your friends close; your enemies closer.
To both ignore the Chinese threat in space and to inflict petty humiliations (no ISS partnership) commits a double blunder.
The Shanghai Daily website also discussed the 2017 Chinese mannd lunar mission. It stated on Nov. 4,2005, “China aims to put astronauts on moon in 2017″
Zhang Liuhao
2005-11-04 Beijing Time
CHINA will send astronauts to the moon about 2017, and build an astronomical observatory on it, the Nanfang City Daily said today, citing the chief scientist of China’s moon project.
The observatory will be part of a moon base, which China is going to build with other countries, said Ouyang Ziyuan, also a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
He said China’s moon landing is not aimed at its rich reserve of helium-3, a non-polluting fusion fuel for power generation or starships. There are 1 million to 5 million tons of helium-3 on the moon, while China’s demand is only 10 tons.
The Earth has only 15 tons of helium-3.
Besides space observation on the moon, China will try to measure the thickness of the moon’s crust and calculate the level of helium-3 and other elements. Ouyang said these moves had never been made by other countries.
China will launch its first moon probe in 2007. The CE-1 orbiter is expected to blast off at southwest China’s Xichang Satellite Launch Center, carried by the Long March 3A rocket.
The satellite will orbit the moon for a year, according to Ouyang.
In addition, the Russian News & Information agency(Novosti) website also confirmed the Chinese 2017-or 2018 manned lunar mission by quoting Anatoly Perminov, the Chief of The Russian Space Agency. It stated on Nov. 7,2005, ” Russia to assist China’s lunar research program
11:03 | 07/ 11/ 2005
BEIJING, November 7 (RIA Novosti, Alexei Yefimov) – Russia is ready to help China implement its lunar research program, the head of the Russian Federal Space Agency said Monday.
Anatoly Perminov said China had undoubtedly become one of the leading space powers since conducting a successful manned mission involving the Shenzhou 6 spacecraft. “I think the next stages of [China’s] manned space flight program will presumably involve a crew of astronauts, a space walk, and the construction of a space station,” he said.
Perminov said Russia could help China train its astronauts for a space walk and develop lunar research equipment. He explained that Russia did not intend to participate in a joint research program but to simply provide assistance, including support for China’s manned lunar exploration, a project envisioned for 2018.
“Russia does not have a special lunar research program,” Perminov said, adding that the two countries had approved a strategic concept to conduct unmanned lunar research under their current bilateral space cooperation program, which expires in 2006.
According to the official, Russia and China are pursuing successful completion of the current program and a new cooperation program for 2007-2010, which envisages construction of new space systems, including an observatory, radio telescopes, and remote sensing equipment to study Mars’ moon Phobos.
“China has expressed interest in the projects and has sent us its proposals, which we are reviewing now,” Perminov said, adding that they might be approved by the end of 2006.
The only purpose in allowing China to participate in ISS is to give them more access to technology for them to steal.
It would be nice if the Chinese could steal the space station. While they’re at it, maybe they can steal Amtrak too.
This is not what is really going on. All that a Chinese taikonaut would steal is a seat from NASA’s royal class: its astronaut corps. To some people in Washington and Houston, that would be intolerable.
USA Cooperation
Ukraine wants to join NASA programs
[02.11.2005 16:00]
Ukraine is interested in participating in NASA programs, the country’s prime minister said Wednesday, RIA Novosti reports.
“We want to join the current NASA programs,” Yuriy Yekhanurov said during a meeting with heads of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Washington.
He said Ukraine could gain access to NASA projects, including future flights to the Moon, after signing a relevant framework agreement and a memorandum.
Yekhanurov also said a NASA delegation could visit Ukraine in late spring 2006.
UNIAN
I think the interesting story that no one is telling is why the Chinese mimic the dead end space programs of the US and the USSR. It’s some kind of misguided nostalgia or timewarped hero worship. It is captured well by Ursula Le Guin’s _The Telling_. The US is most of the way through a 49-year cycle in interest in the Moon. What does China think it will get out of a space program other than some more confidence from its neighbors that its missiles can hit their targets? This kind of grand challenge from yesteryear is weird nostalgia like the _Space Cowboys_ movie.
The trick is to harness this misguided lunacy to use it to improve international relations and lower the cost of space access.
Cooperation
NASA, Ukraine prepare flights to moon
Kiev, Ukraine, Mar. 11 (UPI) — NASA and the Ukrainian space agency are preparing unmanned flights to the moon under a joint project, the Interfax-Ukraine news agency reported.
Eduard Kuznetsov, deputy director general of the National Space Agency of Ukraine, said the first launch is scheduled for late 2006 or early 2007 and Ukraine will provide the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration with the Dnipro rocket.
“Both we and NASA are interested in this project,” Kuznetsov said in an interview on Ukranian ICTV.
The Dnipro is a single-use, three-staged launch vehicle based on the SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missile. The rocket, manufactured by the Yuzhnoe Design Bureau in Dnipropetrovsk, was named after the Dnieper River or the Dnipro in Ukranian.
Ukrainian launch vehicles are the foundation of the country’s space potential. Of the 54 space launches worldwide last year, NSAU carried out seven, sending 15 spacecraft into orbit, Olexander Negoda, NSAU’s director general, said earlier this year.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050310-120040-7846r.htm
The trick is to harness this misguided lunacy to use it to improve international relations and lower the cost of space access.
—-
ti is called Ukrainian
cooperation
I think the interesting story that no one is telling is why the Chinese mimic the dead end space programs of the US and the USSR. It’s some kind of misguided nostalgia or timewarped hero worship.
It’s called a cargo cult. Once upon a time, the US and USSR got a lot of international prestige with their space programs, so the Chinese are emulating them in the hope of garnering same.
Rand, the purpose of the Chinese space program is to enhance the military, economic, and political power of the Chinese state and of the Communist Party. Calling it a “cargo cult” shows a lack of seriousness on your part.
I don’t see how human spaceflight in any country ever enhanced either military or economic power. Political power, maybe.
Rand, the purpose of the Chinese space program is to enhance the military, economic, and political power of the Chinese state and of the Communist Party.
If that’s the purpose, they won’t get much value for their money. It’s a cargo cult. Sort of like the belief that if we build “Apollo on steroids” it will somehow result in a return to some long-lost (and short-lived) glory days.
If the Chinese effort is a “cargo cult”, I wonder how their space craft actually fly? Dr. Cheng suggested that the Shenzhou VI is bigger than Shenzhou V and is more comperable to the original Mir module than the Soyuz. That shows remarkable progress which is more worthy of respect than that kind of sneering.
To my surprise I agree with Mark Whittington at this turn of the conversation. China is worthy of respect. But that respect should not be reduced to unmitigated fear. Not because there is nothing to fear from China, but because fear by itself is a big mistake.
On the other hand, that does not mean that the Chinese space program is any wiser than ours, even if it is technically solid.
If the Chinese effort is a “cargo cult”, I wonder how their space craft actually fly?
You clearly don’t understand the analogy. The cargo cultists control towers actually held “aircraft controllers.”
And Greg, the Chinese government space program is worthy of no less (and no more) respect than other government manned space programs that are beside the point when it comes to actually doing useful things in space.
But Rand, Cargo Cultists were trying to summon back all of those planes that brough all of those goodies during World War II. To my knowledge, the magic hasn’t actually worked.
The Chinese are flying stuff and, despite your sneering, doing useful things.
Dr. Cheng suggested that the Shenzhou VI is bigger than Shenzhou V and is more comperable to the original Mir module than the Soyuz.
I don’t know what Dr. Cheng that Whittington is referring to here (I suspect there are many!), but that can’t possibly be correct. SZ-6 was clearly very similar to SZ-5. It couldn’t be much bigger and still fit on the CZ-2F launcher.
But here’s what I don’t get: so what? What’s the big deal even if China is spending lots of money to race the US (back) to the Moon? We did that once, back in the 60s with the USSR, and it some respects we never recovered. Why will the second time around be any different? I, for one, am happy to see China throw money at manned spaceflight: every yuan spent on Shenzhou is a yuan that can’t be spent on DF-31s and submarines, and probably hastens the eventual political crisis the country faces when it can no longer sustain its current level of economic growth.
Sorry, Mark, but the magic isn’t going to work for the Chinese, either.
There’s a lot more to having useful space program than “flying stuff.”
But here’s what I don’t get: so what? What’s the big deal even if China is spending lots of money to race the US (back) to the Moon? We did that once, back in the 60s with the USSR, and it some respects we never recovered. Why will the second time around be any different?
Yup. Cargo cult.
China is important for one thing that none of you have addressed. That is, the more civilizations who are doing human spaceflight, the more likely it is that any one of them will find some reason to do some particular project, e.g., establish a lunar base or go to Mars or mine an asteroids. Historically, the reasons these sorts of things are done are rarely particularly logical or rational, but in the fullness of time they do often lead to established colonies, trade routes, and the commerce that drives everything else. The fact of China’s participation makes it some unmeasureabe, probably slightl but very significant, degree more likely that humanity will actually expand into the Solar System.
Conversely, as others have pointed out, the fact of China’s participation makes it less likely that the older space powers will back out.
I think it is probably true that, if the goal is an eventual presence of a human civilization or civilizations in the Solar System, the more terrestrial civilizations that are trying to do it, the more likely it is to happen.
— Donald
every yuan spent on Shenzhou is a yuan that can’t be spent on DF-31s and submarines
But all “civilian” space technology is fungible into military space technology.
I think it is probably true that, if the goal is an eventual presence of a human civilization or civilizations in the Solar System…
The goal is the defeat of our enemies.
I’ll boil it down even further. You Lefty/liberal/Progressives like Darwinian evolution? Well, Darwinism implies Social Darwinism, and that implies war in space as well as on Earth.
Why? The struggle for survival … scarce Lebensraum.
I think it is probably true that, if the goal is an eventual presence of a human civilization or civilizations in the Solar System, the more terrestrial civilizations that are trying to do it, the more likely it is to happen.
I think that that’s probably true as well, Donald. The problem is that none of the current “spacefaring” nations are trying to do it, or if they are, it certainly isn’t apparent from their technical approach (I use the singular, because it seems to be restricted to a single one–send people up in capsules on expensive and unreliable expendable launchers). Instead, they’re after “prestige,” and think that this can be achieved by sending a few government employees into space occasionally.
David, if your world view, and goals from life, are really so limited, I really have no comment to make.
Randy, I think they’re doing the best they can. And, certainly in the United States, our citizens are free to experiment with their own ways to do it better.
Expendable rockets are what we’ve got; developing anything else seems to be beyond our technical and / or political capacity, at least in the short term; so to stay in the game we’ve got to get as far as we can with expendables. I think that’s a lot farther than you seem to think (probably the one thing David and I can find to agree on).
— Donald
What he says:
David, if your world view, and goals from life, are really so limited, I really have no comment to make.What he really means:
I can’t handle unabashed political incorrectness.
Randy, I think they’re doing the best they can.
If you’re responding to me, my name’s not Randy.
Whether or not they’re doing “the best they can” is irrelevant (though they could do better if they looked to models other than past wasteful goverment space programs). They’re doing nothing worth the money, and certainly nothing for us to be concerned about. In fact, given the odiousness of their government, I’m quite pleased to see them wasting their resources in such a manner.
“Why will the second time around be any different?”
Because it will not be the 60s nor will the politics of the 60s be replicated. Thus, a chance to do it right this time.
Mark: want to bet that NASA, China or India will get to the Moon first vs. SpaceX, Scaled or Bigelow?
Neither SpaceX, nor Scaled, nor Bigelow will send people to the moon. Except conceivably as a nominal brand for a Russian launch. Otherwise it’s the most ridiculous prediction that I’ve heard in months.
But NASA, China, and India might send astronauts to the moon. Probably not them either, but they might.
Greg, how much do you want to bet?
A few points of clarification:
Mr. Whittington wrote:
“I think Dwayne’s analysis falls down, as did attempts to explain the behavior of previous tyrannical regimes, by ignoring those inconvenient facts.”
Please note that I was summarizing the comments at a conference, not performing analysis. I was reporting.
Mr. Whittington wrote:
“Oh, since Dwyane suggested that the Shenzhou program was ineffecient and corrupt.”
First, the correct spelling of my name puts the “y” before the “a.” Second, since we have not been formally introduced, I prefer last names. Third, I did not suggest that the Chinese program is “corrupt.” I mentioned that one speaker stated that there were warnings from Chinese citizens that their government needed to be diligent about preventing corruption in the Chinese space program.
Mr. Whittington wrote:
“I did some research. The Shenzhou Program has cost about two billion dollars over the past ten years.”
The commonly-cited figure is around $2.3 billion. However, this was addressed at the conference and various speakers stated that these monetary figures are meaningless, just as the officially stated Chinese military budget figures are meaningless–they lie. The speakers suggested that it is better to look at other measures, such as numbers of launches, numbers of satellites, numbers of personnel involved in the program. The comments about the inefficiency of their system came from several people who had direct contact with people in the Chinese space program. They said that it is commonly accepted within the Chinese program that they have far more people involved in their program than they require. The result is that they have diverted engineers from other important areas, such as civil construction. I actually found this to be one of several surprising revelations at the conference.
Mr. Sterling wrote:
“The Shanghai Daily website also discussed the 2017 Chinese mannd lunar mission.”
One should be careful of assuming that because a story appeared in more than one publication it is therefore more credible. As the speakers stated at the conference, there is a danger that people in the West will assume that a non-credible source is actually credible–something that happens all the time. CNA Corp. actually has a DoD contract to monitor Chinese media on defense issues and strives hard to vet their sources.
It is worth noting that this is not the first time that a Western media organization has reported that the Chinese are racing the Americans to the moon based upon a questionable Chinese source. This has happened repeatedly and usually after some period of time the reports fall apart.
Several of the speakers at the conference had gone to China and talked to people involved in their program. They stated that the Chinese clearly indicated that they do not want to race the Americans in space–because they believe that they will lose. Their program has its own agenda.
Rand, my appologies, comes from being in too much of a hurry too late in the afternoon.
— Donald
First, my apologies to Mr. Day for both the typo and the semblance of familarity.
Second, I would like to caution folks on relying solely on open sources on trying to figure out what the Chinese are about in space. China is, as I and others pointed out, a totalitarian society and information is not that freely available, even from princibles. That means just because they say something does not necessarily make it so.
Mr. Whittington wrote:
“China is, as I and others pointed out, a totalitarian society and information is not that freely available, even from princibles. That means just because they say something does not necessarily make it so.”
Which is why using their publicly stated cost figures for Shenzhou ($2.3 billion) is not advisable.
The subject of open versus closed sources was indirectly addressed at the conference. Several things were mentioned that are relevant. First, China is a more open society than one would expect, but not open enough. Compare the Chinese space program to the Soviet space program at a similar stage of development–the Chinese talk far more about their hardware, their organizations, their people, and their plans than the Soviets did for much of their early program. So there is a lot of information available, some of it contradictory, and not all of it vetted. However, there is still much that is unknown.
Closely related to that point is that there are different qualities of sources. The CNA Corp. people noted that the People’s Liberation Army has its own publishing house, which is a useful source of information on Chinese military doctrine. The Web, and tabloid newspapers, are not necessarily the best places to find relevant information.
Second, non-open sources (i.e. espionage) are poor. This is particularly true about plans and intentions and doctrine, which cannot be seen from a spy satellite. (Lack of information on things like Chinese military space doctrine was something that was discussed at the conference.)
Third, it is important to note that DoD has often relied upon Chinese open source material–and been dramatically wrong. The DoD has claimed that the Chinese are developing a parasitic microsatellite to destroy American satellites. That information was based upon a website run by a space buff inside China, NOT any information from the Chinese government, open or non-open. So the blade cuts both ways–hawkish opinions about China have been based upon dubious, inaccurate, open information.
Fourth, the fact that our information _and_ our analysis on the Chinese space program is poor is a good argument for engaging the Chinese to get better information. It is also a good argument for improving our analysis and avoiding things like partisan bombast.
Fifth, if one takes the position that we cannot discuss this subject because the information is limited, then there is really no point in discussing it. Like any subject, one should be conscious of the limitations of one’s sources.
Finally, if you have better information upon which to base your arguments, please use it.
Concerning China and ISS, this comment by Dwayne Day struck me:
Fourth, the fact that our information _and_ our analysis on the Chinese space program is poor is a good argument for engaging the Chinese to get better information. It is also a good argument for improving our analysis and avoiding things like partisan bombast.
1st, there is nothing to be learned by China at ISS that Russia is not capable of selling to China. Thus, to say we will exclude China from ISS so “they won’t steal our technology” makes no sense.
2nd, if a Sehnzou docks at ISS (and if non-Chinese fly to ISS via Shenzou) we might actually learn something about their space program.
“So the blade cuts both ways–hawkish opinions about China have been based upon dubious, inaccurate, open information.”
Hawkish (so-called) opinions about China are based on past and current Chinese actions. This is a government that deals with dissidents by running them over with tanks and which has threatened this country with nuclear war if the US deigns to interfere with its designs on Tawain. Assuming benign intentions from a country like that seems to me to be foolish and naive.
Mr. Day brings up a number of interesting points. I was particularly struck by, China is a more open society than one would expect, but not open enough. Compare the Chinese space program to the Soviet space program at a similar stage of development–the Chinese talk far more about their hardware, their organizations, their people, and their plans than the Soviets did for much of their early program..
China is an interesting example of an increasingly capitalist country that remains a dictatorship. Unfortunately, this is not a particularly unique animal in the nation-state kingdom in anything except its size and its paranoia, but it is not the Soviet Union. We should not treat China the way we treated the Soviet Union. Fortunately, determining exactly how we should treat China is way above may pay scale, but I would guess that it should involve a bit more engagement than was appropriate to the Soviet Union.
While I could be talked out of this position, it’s tempting to feel that if we could do something like the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project with the Soviet Union, we should be able to invite the Chinese to work on the Space Station.
As several here have pointed out, every resource the Chinese spend on their space program is not spent on weapons pointed at us.
— Donald
Mr. Day brings up a number of interesting points. I was particularly struck by, China is a more open society than one would expect, but not open enough. Compare the Chinese space program to the Soviet space program at a similar stage of development–the Chinese talk far more about their hardware, their organizations, their people, and their plans than the Soviets did for much of their early program..
China is an interesting example of an increasingly capitalist country that remains a dictatorship. Unfortunately, this is not a particularly unique animal in the nation-state kingdom in anything except its size and its paranoia, but it is not the Soviet Union. We should not treat China the way we treated the Soviet Union. Fortunately, determining exactly how we should treat China is way above may pay scale, but I would guess that it should involve a bit more engagement than was appropriate to the Soviet Union.
While I could be talked out of this position, it’s tempting to feel that if we could do something like the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project with the Soviet Union, we should be able to invite the Chinese to work on the Space Station.
As several here have pointed out, every resource the Chinese spend on their space program is not spent on weapons pointed at us.
— Donald
I’m not sure what can be gained with space cooperation with the Chinese, at least until and if they mend their ways.
The point that you’re missing, Mark, is that there is already a thousand times more real cooperation between China and the United States than there would be from a few trips to the space station. IBM sold its Thinkpad unit to China. General Motors plans to sell millions of cars in China. There are hundreds of things like that going on.
China’s military and its undemocratic national government are serious problems, but the only way to solve these problems is to step them down slowly. Pretending that it’s another Cold War will get you nowhere.
Greg, I’m a little dubious about selling them other forms of technology. And I’d love to see an example of how a major power like China was ever coaxed out of their military hardware and the imperial ambitions that go with them. That sort of thing has been tried before, with less than happy results.
Mark: You could look at the way that England found peace with France in the 19th century. France drifted towards stability and democracy, and its trade with England grew, until eventually they were permanent allies.
It’s not a foolproof solution. But it is the only solution. China has 20% of the world’s people. Either they stay poor forever or China gains power somehow.
In any case, just letting some Chinese visit the space station isn’t “selling technology”. It would be good will almost for free. Assuming, that is, that the United States foregoes the even better idea of plunging the space station into the ocean.
Greg, that was of course after Trafalgar and Waterloo. That is to say, the Brits beat the French in a war before coming to that arrangement.
By the way, I’d rather avoid a shooting war with the Chinese for obvious reasons.
The US has spent billions building ISS. Our partners have all contributed in one way or another (more or LESS depending upon perspectives.)
Let’s sell the Chinese a position at ISS ($5 billion maybe?) and add that revenue to cover Griffin’s shortfall.
Bill, an entertaining idea. I doubt that the Chinese would go for it.
Mark, ISS is an expensive asset and the US and its partners have expended a great deal of time and money building it. Why should China just waltz in and join at no cost?
Besides, if we made that offer, $5 – $7 billion to join a re-negotiated ISS partnership, and China said “no” wouldn’t that be a blow to their prestige and cut off any whining at the knees?
“I won’t invite you to my Halloween party for free, but I’m willing to sell you a ticket.” This is not the way to win friends and influence people.
If ISS is an expensive asset, it isn’t really a valuable one. Even if it were valuable, one single ride to it wouldn’t be particularly expensive or valuable. The only real cost is that one of the astronauts in training would have to give up a seat. It would make that select group angry. Big deal.
Greg: Pretending that it’s another Cold War will get you nowhere.
While I agree with your wider point (except the nonesense about the Space Station), I disagree with this statement. Treating China as a cold war-type adversery before it is absolutely necessary is guaranteed to get us (and the world) into a great deal of trouble. If you treat a potential criminal as if they have no choice but to become a criminal, if you give them no incentive to be good, you guarantee they will become a criminal. If and when China invades Taiwan, all bets are off. But until then, it is to our benefit to try to tie them tightly into the world economy and to engage with them politically — to give them lots of real, practical, economic reasons not to behave badly. Economic reasons are the kinds of reasons that China listens to.
Mark: I doubt that the Chinese would go for it.
China has repeatedly asked to be invited into the International Space Station project for at least a decade. Right or wrong, we have always ignored them. Who knows whether they would be interested now, but we cannot know if we simply insist they aren’t and don’t ask them.
— Donald
You could look at the way that England found peace with France in the 19th century.
Peace with France? Yes, after that little business of the Napoleonic Wars. The Battle of Waterloo in 1814 and those other obscure events.
… and its trade with England grew, until eventually they were permanent allies.
Permanent allies? Or merely allies of convenience during the first and second half of the German wars of 1914-1945? The Frogs certainly are not allies of les Anglos Saxons now.
…it’s tempting to feel that if we could do something like the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project with the Soviet Union, we should be able to invite the Chinese to work on the Space Station.
And of course, Apollo-Soyuz was so effective at improving US-Soviet relations. Why, the Soviets even declined to invade Afghanistan or station SS-20 missiles in Europe because of all the good will ASTP generated. Oh, wait…
The fact is that ASTP was a stunt that did not lead to lasting US-Soviet space cooperation and did absolutely nothing, in the big picture, to influence Soviet behavior. Real space cooperation with Russia did not occur until after the USSR broke up, and Russia was invited to join ISS. Even then, that did nothing to influence Russian behavior. The US had hoped that ISS participation would encourage Russia to stop proliferating nuclear and missile technology to nations like Iran. Not only did Russia not stop, they expanded their ties to Iran once it became clear that the US could not punish them without jeopardizing ISS. With the passage of amendments to the INA, the US failure is now complete. This should have served as an object lesson to those advocating similar cooperation with China, but it appears not to have sunk in yet. As far as I’m concerned, the burden is on the proponents of Chinese participation in ISS to prove that this will change anything substantial.
The point that you’re missing, Mark, is that there is already a thousand times more real cooperation between China and the United States than there would be from a few trips to the space station. IBM sold its Thinkpad unit to China. General Motors plans to sell millions of cars in China. There are hundreds of things like that going on.
The fact that the US and China engage in economic cooperation does not mean the US should invite China to ISS. In fact, it can be argued that strengthening those existing economic ties will have far more influence over Chinese behavior than more symbolic measures. If in the future China decides not to invade Taiwan, it will be because US economic cooperation will create a Chinese middle class that will realize that war over Taiwan will be Bad For Business, not because of their participation in ISS.
In any case, just letting some Chinese visit the space station isn’t “selling technology”. It would be good will almost for free. Assuming, that is, that the United States foregoes the even better idea of plunging the space station into the ocean.
That good will plus four bucks will buy you a Frappuccino. It certainly won’t influence Chinese behavior in any areas the US actually cares about. And you would have gotten your wish with ISS if the US had not invited Russia to join – the program would most likely have been cancelled. So if you think ISS is an albatross for the US, why strengthen it by adding yet another partner?
If we cannot cooperate with the Chinese on ISS why should we buy their clothing?
Buying their clothing benefits the US in two ways: lower prices for US consumers and an expanded Chinese middle class that may eventually influence China for the better. Cooperating with them on ISS benefits the Chinese but has no benefits for the US.
Nemo’s right. Our reward for cooperating with the Russians on the ISS is that the Russians are helping the Iranians build atomic bombs.
Our reaction? “Punish” the Rooskies by purchasing more Soyuz rides from them.