The above coupled with a Confucian ethos (hierarchical) perspective toward individual liberty, the need to redress 500 years of humiliation and a burgeoning sense of national pride and mission among its middle class will create a potent challenge for the unfocused, over-indulgent and undisciplned west.

Will we rise to the challenge? History will tell. I welcome the Chinese, especially in the arena of space. We are better when a little scared. The partnerships and “cooperation” of the previous administration were excuses for stasis. The worst thing that happened to the U.S. was the demise of the Soviet Union. Compete, grow or die.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/12/content_5832530.htm

China may appear to be more aggressive on the robotic side than on the human side of its civil space plans.

FWIW…

I agree you that China is most likely just trying (in the short term) to counter our huge strategic advantage for legitimate national security purposes … but on another point, in my opinion, you are engaging in wishful thinking.”

Just to be clear, I only said that there was a “good chance” that China’s economy will experience a major setback. It’s a WAG, but I wouldn’t put the odds at more than 50/50 that a major disruption will emerge in the next, say, 40 years that upsets Chinese economic progress and probably less than that. But between China’s overpopulation, rampant and worsening rural poverty, long-suppressed political dissent, and huge air/water pollution, exhausted ecosystems, and related health issues, I think the probability of such a disruption is significant.

“I am quite sure that there were highly intelligent people in England and France who came up with reasons to worry about the rising star of the U.S. They were wrong.”

While your point is taken, I think it’s a poor analogy. With the exception of the Native American population, the United States was blessed with blank slates in terms of both physical frontiers and governmental and social institutions. With one of the most ancient cultures and longest-standing boundaries of any nation, China arguably has more baggage to deal with than any other country attempting to industrialize and modernize. China has demonstrated remarkable adaptability in some areas — in disposing of some communist market trappings, for example — but there are many, much more difficult, economic, social, and environmental problems that hold the potential to trip China up in the coming decades, certainly way baggage than the United States or any other New World nation had to deal with.

China’s economy is riding on a wave of cheap labor. Even if no event external to the Chinese economy causes a disruption, a cheaper alternative to China’s labor (Africa, increasing automation, etc.) will eventually emerge in the global markets. Whether China can manage that transition as well as blank-slate nation like the United States has remains to be seen.

BTW, there was a good article in Saturday’s Washington Post business section regarding China’s foreign currency reserves, the amount of U.S. T-bills they control, and what they plan to do with those reserves in the future (invest some in higher-return instruments such as stocks and bonds). If I’m reading the article right, at least from the perspective of these currency reserves, China’s economy would appear to be more reliant on ours than the other way around. Almost all of their reserve is in T-bills, but if they dumped those T-bills tomorrow, it would amount to only one day’s worth of T-bill trading on the global markets. It would appear that the U.S. could screw with China’s economy by restricting T-bill sales more easily that China could screw with the U.S. economy by dumping T-bills.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030900194.html

Also, while I prefer diplomatic initiatives to a space arms race (especially non-reversible and debris-creating weapons) for the foreseeable future (if ever), I agree with the general sentiment here that responsive space (rapid launch, easily replenished satellites, in-space fueling/repair) is a good defensive investment that would pay dividends outside the national security sector and that NASA’s human space flight efforts could fit into that, were it a priority.

Yeah, and the other one was the laws of physics…

Good point on the LEO Propellant Depot, and the importance of expanding the markets for commercial space transportation services.

FYI, Lockheed reported in 2003 that ONE of the barriers to acquiring large investments by private markets in VentureStar was the lack of proven markets.

Check out:
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS1/SESSION7/MEADE/7001P.pdf

In this paper, Lockheed executives concluded that “market risk” was “pivotal to the success” of the follow-on RLV. (They do acknowledge many other problems) Lockheed says “NASA’s contention that lowest possible prices would create significant market growth — basically a “build it and they will come” philosophy — was not a comfortable market forecast approach for investment bankers.”

If NASA wants to help, a LEO Propellant Depot architecture makes sense.

– Ijustcanttellya

I agree with you on the importance of first *recognizing* the real threat is a long-term economic threat, and “that means more investment in education, R&T and establishing dominance in nascent economic markets.”

I would just add that one “nascent economic market” we really need to dominate is commercial reusable space transportation. That is a nascent economic market that is strategically critical to dominate.

– Al

PS — NASA could help with this national security objective by structuring its human exploration plans around a LEO propellant depot, which would create another customer for reusable RLVs.

But does anybody know of any Democratic Senators who have publicly supported ORS? (There are a handful of Republican Senators, but they are backbenchers now.)

– Ijustcanttellya

I agree you that China is most likely just trying (in the short term) to counter our huge strategic advantage for legitimate national security purposes … but on another point, in my opinion, you are engaging in wishful thinking.

ANONYMOUS: And economically, with massive problems of population, poverty, political change, and environment degredation to overcome, I’d guesstimate there’s as good a chance that China’s rising star will fall as continue to rise in the coming decades.

GUESSWHO: They will probably never achieve parity, and I don’t see that as their goal, but they can use leap-ahead technologies that can neutralize large segments of the US arsenal if employed correctly.

If China’s economy grows to much more than the size of the U.S. economy, I think it is almost a given that they will (someday) achieve military parity.

Maybe the problem is that this is so long in the future that people don’t care. But if we don’t acknowledge the problem, there is no way we have a chance of dealing with it, and our grandchildren will reap the consequences.

On this issue, I agree with Anonymous-Prime who stated The true “threat” from China is in economic dominance, which is fair game, as far as I’m concerned. The U.S. needs to … Recognize the actual game we’re in and start focusing resources on solving the problem. That means more investment in education, R&T and establishing dominance in nascent economic markets.

– Anon2