“China is often accused of supporting a string of despots, nuclear proliferators, and genocidal regimes, shielding them from international pressure and thus reversing progress on human rights and humanitarian principles. But over the last two years, Beijing has been quietly overhauling its policies toward pariah states. It strongly denounced North Korea’s nuclear test in October 2006 and took the lead, with the United States, in drafting a sweeping United Nations sanctions resolution against Pyongyang. Over the past year, it has voted to impose and then tighten sanctions on Iran, it has supported the deployment of a United Nations-African Union (UN-AU) force in Darfur, and it has condemned a brutal government crackdown in Burma (which the ruling junta renamed Myanmar in 1989). China is now willing to condition its diplomatic protection of pariah countries, forcing them to become more acceptable to the international community.” http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87103/stephanie-kleine-ahlbrandt-andrew-small/china-s-new-dictatorship-diplomacy.html

If all we have to go on is traditions, then we clearly know what China’s LONG TERM traditions are and we shouldn’t kid ourselves. Not in only a two year change.

“China has been modernizing its military, but it has not demonstrated an interest in substantially increasing its strategic capabilities, such as rapidly developing a blue water navy or changing its strategic nuclear posture.” Review, Dwayne Day

“Sea power. A hundred years after Theodore Roosevelt sent his Great While Fleet around the world to signal the emergence of a new great power, China is rediscovering the writings of Admiral Mahan on the importance of sea power in history and dreaming of a Great White Fleet of its own. Against the backdrop of an ever-shrinking U.S. Navy (more on that later), China is transforming itself as a maritime superpower at such high speed that Western analysts estimate it could become the world’s leading naval power by 2020.”

“Space power. While lending support to Russia’s ludicrous posturing on NATO missile defense, China is experimenting with antisatellite weapons — a disturbing trend given the reliance of modern military (especially navies) on space power.”

“soft power. On the military side, China is focusing on developing security cooperation within the ASEAN Regional Forum framework with the intent of marginalizing America. On the civilian side, China is peddling “Asian values” from Africa to Eurasia and from Latin America to Southeast Asia. For the past six years, China has been promoting autocracy through soft power while America has been promoting democracy through hard power, and the verdict is in: China today has a more positive image worldwide than America.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_revolution_in_transatlanti.html

“But there are also technical problems with this proposal to rely upon the Shenzhou. For starters, the United States has limited knowledge of and therefore no confidence in the Chinese manned spacecraft. To date, Shenzhou has flown only twice with humans aboard. The second flight took place two years after the first, and the third, scheduled for this year, will be three years after the second. It is doubtful that the Chinese themselves can have much understanding and confidence in the vehicle considering how rarely they actually fly it.” Review, Dwayne Day

What does the Shenzhou have to do with being a partner in the ISS? I do not remember canada having to demonstrate one. “have space crane will travel” you only had to commit to bringing something to the table in exchange you would get some flight time for your country’s astronaut. It was all about space access. If we think they can bring something to the party then ask them but in my opinion China has a ways to go before we ask.

This is simply wrong. Those who actually work in the space policy field deal with a far broader and more complex range of issues. These include ITAR, acquisition reform, workforce, cost estimation and control, balance within and across program areas, international cooperation, project phasing, launch vehicle policy, legal issues, debris mitigation policies, establishment of standards of conduct/rules of the road for spacefaring powers, technology investment, priority setting and a host of other subjects. The comments on this board–when they aren’t simply wacky and totally disconnected from reality (i.e. space elevators, colonization)–are narrow and repetitive, and ultimately beside the point. The space enthusiasts are obsessed with these things, but the people who work in the field are dealing with a set of much more real, and pressing set of issues on a day to day basis.

Mr Day – part of the problem is that, for better or worse, those are the biggest issues that the space community faces. They permiate practically every aspect of space, I would argue. Not talking about those 3 is, in a lot of respect, a bit like trying to have a foreign policy discussion without talking about Iraq – whether you support the war or not, I am sure everyone agrees that it is one of the largest issues we face.

The same applies to ESAS, Nasa leadership, and, to a degree, NewSpace.

DWAYNE DAY: One point that I made was that everybody focuses on the political aspect, but there is a technical aspect as well. NASA will not want to allow Shenzhou near ISS _unless_ the Chinese have demonstrated both safety and rendezvous. If they demonstrate that, then the technical issue will recede.

The reason is that the technical issue is relatively straightforward and easy to solve, while the political problems are not easy or straightforward.

NASA knows how to integrate new countries into ISS (they have already done so with 15 countries), and to manage the technical challenges. If the White House so directed NASA, and then NASA management directed the ISS program to do so, I am confident they would come to an agreement with China on a forward plan that dealt with all the technical challenges. NASA is good at making forward plans to deal with technical issues.

If anybody disagrees, please say so now, and why.

However, the geopolitical political and policy issues are much more challenging.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the ISS should become the most exclusive club of democracies in human civilization. When China becomes a democracy, they can join. (I know that Putin is increasingly a challenge to this definition of the ISS club, but we invited Russia to join after the Wall came down, not before it came down.)

Consistent with such a “ISS is a club of democracies” policy, we should be inviting Indian to join right now, not China.

This is a geopolitical issue, not a technical issue, and is well beyond NASA.

In addition, there is a major unintended consequence of bringing China into ISS in order to get access to Shenzou crew services.

This would hand a core target market of U.S. commercial companies over to another country, completely disregarding that U.S. policy is to buy “ISS crew/cargo services” from U.S. commercial firms.

This barter deal would significantly harm U.S. companies. I am saddened to see Jeff Manber (who used to be part of the Office of Space Commerce in the U.S. Department of Commerce in the Reagan Administration … and was one of the countries leading commercial space advocates) travel so far from his roots.

I think it would be absolutely tragic to do everything we are doing to encourage private U.S. investment in commercial space transportation, to invest $100 Billion of taxpayers funding in the ISS, and then hand over what may be the most important result of the ISS program (a real demand side market for U.S. commercial firms) over to China.

Finally, with regards to another point you made, I agree that bringing China into the ISS would create some benefit vis-a-vis Russia — but this benefit is purely tactical … i.e., at the NASA level. It would pay little or no geopolitical benefits, since paying a higher price for Soyuz seats is not a geopolitical problem of the United States of America.

In summary, bringing China into the ISS is a really bad idea for U.S. commercial space transportation, and a bad idea for policy reasons also.

– Al

Please elaborate why you think they are “pointless”. You are lumping everybody together to make your statement into a generality. Each poster obviously has their own point to make, and therefore each person is making the points they want to make. It just may not be your point.

QUESTION: What “points” do you want people to discuss?

Let me be very specific. Which “point” did you make that you want ME to respond to? (I can’t speak for others, but I am willing to have a specific discussion with you on the exact point of your choosing.)

– Al