Other

Caution about US-China space cooperation

When President Obama visited China earlier this month, the US and China issued a joint statement that included a passage about space cooperation, including “starting a dialogue on human space flight and space exploration”. Cooperation would be a good thing, right? Not necessarily, according to some.

In an Aviation Week op-ed last week, Eric Sterner warns cooperation could lead to more technology transfer, something that, in the 1990s, led to stiffened export control regulations that transferred commercial satellites and their components to the US Munitions List. Such transfer is worrisome, he argues, not only because it could aid Chinese military modernization but also because China is a “serial proliferator” who could then transfer such technologies to places like Iran and North Korea. “Until China’s intentions are clearer and its behavior has verifiably and persistently changed,” he concludes, “close cooperation entails risks that far exceed the potential benefits.”

In this week’s issue of The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman raises concerns about the appearance of cooperation between the US and China. If the US looks like it’s trying too hard to cooperate with China (or other countries, for that matter), it could give the appearance of weakness. He also notes that previous models for international cooperation, such as Apollo-Soyuz and ISS, don’t fit the current situation, in part because of the lack of knowledge about what is motivating China’s human spaceflight program. “If the US presents itself as too eager for partnership agreements or too weak to explore the solar system without assistance, then the world and the American people will only see softness.”

52 comments to Caution about US-China space cooperation

  • CharlesHouston

    The main caution we should have when talking about cooperation with China is the need to SLOW DOWN while negotiations are done, quality control standards are compared, translations are completed, etc. The ISS is a prime example of how more partners slows down progress. They bring resources which are useful but merging the programs is a huge undertaking.
    The very shallow Taylor Dinerman article worries about us appearing weak and that is a distraction from the actual concern that we do not bring on a new partner and the many difficulties of being able to work with them.

  • common sense

    ” “If the US presents itself as too eager for partnership agreements or too weak to explore the solar system without assistance, then the world and the American people will only see softness.””

    Sorry but this is a pathetic argument. Softness??? Softness on what? Space Exploration?

    As to Eric Sterner’s argument, let he be reminded that China does have a flying vehicle and a launcher. And please save me the argument of their technological achievement(s) or not and flight frequency. The Chinese HAVE a vehicle and we don’t. And that is that.

    These are the echoes of the old Cold War mentality motivated by fear. Who in heck said that if the US were seeking partnership it meant for the US to become followers???? And by the way right now the US is weak! Shuttle will retire soon and we fly with Soyuz. So??? Please people come back to reality.

  • There’s no scientific or financial reason to cooperate with China in space. China is about a decade or two behind the US in space technology.

    We need to focus on advancing our own manned space program and let fascist China do its own thing– all by its lonesome.

  • mike shupp

    The US is making progress in space exploration very very very slowly. It’s preposterous to be worried about how much acess to our technology is going to boost the Chinese space program over the next 10, 20, or 30 years, when we sit on our duffs and twiddle our thumbs for that period — which is what we are evidently going to do.

    If the Chinese have the courage and strength to conquer the solar system, while we don’t, more power to them! There never was some statement from God that guaranteed the heavens to a people that reached that Moon and spent 40 years afterwards sitting on their asses.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “If the Chinese have the courage and strength to conquer the solar system, while we don’t, more power to them! There never was some statement from God that guaranteed the heavens to a people that reached that Moon and spent 40 years afterwards sitting on their asses.”

    Considering the nature of the Chinese regime, that would be the most terrible development in human history. Say goodbye to even the memory of human freedom.

  • Major Tom

    Mr. Sterner’s article would be stronger if all the threats it identified were based in fact. Unfortunately, the claim that “China has already lased U.S. satellites” and “is working on advanced microsatellites and formation flying” for ASATs have both been debunked. See:

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1155/1

    Moreover, it’s not clear what dual-use technologies would be at risk if China and the United States cooperated in human space flight. Many human space flight technologies, like space life support and pressure vessels, have little military application. And those that do, like basic space communications, launch, rendezvous and docking, and reentry, China has already demonstrated or is very close to demonstrating.

    In fact, if preventing the proliferation or development of sensitive technologies is Mr. Sterner’s goal, then some of the specific advice that he provides — that the U.S. engage China on “lunar or Earth science missions” — arguably poses a much greater risk. The sensors and instrumentation on an Earth science satellite or the targeting and tracking systems for a distant lunar spacecraft have much more in common with military reconnaissance and targeting and tracking systems than most technologies in the human space flight program.

    While the general advice that Mr. Sterner provides is good — be wary of cooperation with China due to its history of technological espionage and weapons proliferation (and the Chinese strategy of asymmetric warfare targeting vulnerable U.S. space assets that goes unmentioned) — that advice should be wholly grounded in fact, and it should not lump all space technologies together. In fact, making Chinese participation in the ISS or other U.S. civil human space flight programs contingent on greater transparency in the militarily oriented and secretive elements of the Chinese space program, would probably go farther to achieving the ends Mr. Sterner desires than some of the advice in his article.

    I agree with the other posters about the weak logic in Mr. Dinerman’s article. Unless China (or any other nation) is engaged, the U.S. has few or no bargaining chips and is in a much weaker position if and when the U.S. wants to change China’s (or any other nation’s) behavior.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    “While the general advice that Mr. Sterner provides is good — be wary of cooperation with China due to its history of technological espionage and weapons proliferation (and the Chinese strategy of asymmetric warfare targeting vulnerable U.S. space assets that goes unmentioned) — that advice should be wholly grounded in fact, and it should not lump all space technologies together. In fact, making Chinese participation in the ISS or other U.S. civil human space flight programs contingent on greater transparency in the militarily oriented and secretive elements of the Chinese space program, would probably go farther to achieving the ends Mr. Sterner desires than some of the advice in his article.”

    I think this above goes without saying and it might be said of even our more hmm friendly participants in any endeavors we seek, be it space or otherwise. Why would it be that China poses a greater risk than any other nations? Are we to assume that Russia is so “friendly” that they do not pose any risk? What about Europe? So of course there must be some level of protection. No one is claiming we should open the doors to our most coveted secrets to China or any one for thaat matter.

    But please all make sure you remember that there is an ongoing shift in the economical center of power, away from the west and to the east. China will become the most powerful economy in the not so distant future barred any unforeseen event (e.g. a nuclear exchange between the Koreas). It is in our utmost interest to cooperate with them NOW. We need to place our assets strategically.

    And for those who think that China is so backward they cannot do anything better than the US please make sure you read this and then really think really really hard:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-qian-xuesen1-2009nov01,0,2865408.story

  • “There’s no scientific or financial reason to cooperate with China in space. China is about a decade or two behind the US in space technology.
    We need to focus on advancing our own manned space program and let fascist China do its own thing– all by its lonesome.”
    [Marcel F. Williams]
    *gets up off of floor* Fascist!?!
    “…the same way the Republicans are Communist because it’s the People’s REPUBLIC of China” (John Stewart)

    So that would be the 1980s space technology of the shuttle? And from what I see the ISS is largely run by IBM Lenovo Laptops.
    Rather than “all by its lonesome” the only country that isn’t cooperating with China is America. Chinasat 6B. Google it and weep!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ November 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    There’s no scientific or financial reason to cooperate with China in space. China is about a decade or two behind the US in space technology.

    ….I concur…I cannot see a single reason other then perhaps a change in teh cuisine and that is intended to be an insult…that the PLA space program should be invited to join ISS.

    In reality while ISS is a NASA program, it is quite clear to all but the dull that the foreign partners bring a substantial amount of value to the operation…and it is unlikely that NASA alone could have built the thing.

    The Russians bring not only modules, crew lift and resupply, but a common sense approach to space station operations that NASA has yet to master.

    The Europeans have brought some resupply, but most important (at least now) they have manufactured modules which NASA and American contractors seemed to falter on.

    The Japanese have brought resupply and a module which might turn out to actually be the centerpiece of ISS research ops.

    The chinese? they have no real history in spaceflight, no technological innovation (their vehicles so far are Russian knockoffs) in human spaceflight modules…

    Likewise there seem no real technological reasons to involve them.

    More importantly ISS needs to desperately translate from being a “government only club done for the yah yahs of government” to actually doing useful things. I dont see just bringing up another government flunkie as doing that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Peter Smith

    It seems to me that the administration should be doing it’s best to strengthen space relations with or more traditional partners in this field. The Russians, japanese, british, canadians and Australians. After all it would be far easier to get the funding for a moon shot and an eventual mars research base(fingers crossed) if we could spread the weight of the bill across many countries. It also has the benifit of smoothing over and cementing relations with russia and give us time to evaluate the motives of china( which is caution founded on reason, the Chinese are a new world power and their culture thinks long term… It would be best to determine the intent of their leadership first).

    Peter Smith
    BA political science
    History teacher

  • Dave Huntsman

    Well said, Major Tom. Engaging China closer to our terms is the way to do it – while we still can. Keeping them out, thereby making them do grow away from us in space – while taking other countries with them, by the way – is not in Earth’s long-term interest.

    I opposed the way Russia was integrated into ISS way back in the beginning (Gary Oleson and I wrote an op-ed suggesting a different approach). But the fact is that the Russian aerospace industry in general, and space in particular, has become much more transparent to the rest of the world, partly as a result of that involvement.

    The right agreement to bring China in – which would involve approval by all the partner governments, by the way – would indeed need to necessitate greater visibility into the Chinese aerospace industry – something they’ll resist. We need to negotiate that agreement while we’re still in a position of space strength to do so. Our position of strength is not just technological, but organizational, including international: we’ve got the Partnership, now. Let’s build on it while we can. It’s the right strategic decision.

    A lot of things are not on ISS that should be; such as the Centrifuge module, which I believe is still rusting outside in a parking lot in Japan. Any Chinese contribution should be a definite value-and-capability-added to the ISS as a whole.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dave Huntsman wrote @ November 30th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

    Well said, Major Tom. Engaging China closer to our terms is the way to do it – while we still can…

    this is where I get off the train. I do not view China as a major threat to US super power status. The US is the major threat to US Superpower status.

    In my view the Chinese are a paper dragon. NOTHING in my mind that they have done militarily or industrially and not the least of which in human space flight (or even spaceflight in general) smacks me as innovative or thoughtful or anything more then “lets copy the other folks”.

    There are some signs that the over all status of the Chinese economy is (to avoid bringing in Hitler!) Like one of my sultan roosters. Sultans are small anyway, but this one is really really small…and not seeming to really put on a lot of mass.

    however, he was one of the first of the new batch to assume the rooster perch and while his “crow” is not a lot, the hens are starting to look at him.

    what value do you see in bringing them into ISS?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Peter Smith wrote @ November 30th, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    It seems to me that the administration should be doing it’s best to strengthen space relations with or more traditional partners in this field. The Russians, japanese, british, canadians and Australians. After all it would be far easier to get the funding for a moon shot and an eventual mars research base(fingers crossed) if we could spread the weight of the bill across many countries.

    why would they?

    Robert G. Oler

  • “what value do you see in bringing them into ISS?”
    [Robert G. Oler wot wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 12:24 am ]
    Ooh I dunno . Inventing the Rocket for starters…
    It’s in the name: INTERNATIONAL Space Station.

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

    (Sun-Tzu wot wrote ~400 BC :)
    That being said I would rather see “them” rapidly move to their version of Mir and thence to a second OPSEK to which ESA and RosKosmos could add new modules; with visits by Brazilian and Indian spacers using their indigenous launch capabilities. Placing these Complexes in complementary orbits also provides mutual safe havens. From there the international community moves on to Lunar Operations. Or even Mars!

    The REAL question is what can America bring to the New Space Order? Except micro-management; powerpoint and bluster!

    “why would they?”
    [Robert G. Oler wot wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 12:25 am]
    Which “they”?
    If it’s the current Administration, then the answer is simple: Singing “kumbaya” around the orbital campfire! And spreading the cost of vanity projects in economically straightened times!

    If it’s your traditional partners like the Russians “Brrr” (Sound of U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy at 1000 rpm in his grave!) I don’t really know as they are also adequately supplied with micro-management; powerpoint and bluster! As well as a functional space program (Soyuz) that is being adopted by Europe, India and the Chinese.

    In response to the totality of your rather imprecise question, I refer you to:
    http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/moon_next_020923-2.html
    and:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-diamandis/most-valuable-real-estate_b_357177.html
    and my own modest contribution to the debate:
    http://brobof.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/moon-pie/

  • Robert G. Oler

    brobof wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 5:16 am

    The REAL question is what can America bring to the New Space Order? Except micro-management; powerpoint and bluster!..

    thank you for asking the question that in the US everyone should be asking.

    What the US CAN bring to the space station and “the New Space Order” is and I know that this is a controversial topic…FREE ENTERPRISE.

    The US leads the world in its industry and has invented most of the industry that the world has (airplanes etc) Because it has free enterprise.

    There was a time when innovation was favored in all aspects of how the US government did business AND That coupled with amazing consumer power (because we had a middle class) took relatively obscure people like a guy named Ford or Bell or some boys named Wright and made them into giants because they made a product that no one else could make…and it sold to both the consumer base and to the Government.

    There is a reason that North American Aviation got started…a few folks came up with an idea for a fighter that was far better then what Curtiss was producing and built it in “almost” 120 days. It was called The P-51. Add a LImey engine and wow it was a sky sweeper.

    Today innovation does not exist in human spaceflight because NASA has choked the life out of it,

    It has done it with the support of semi capitalist on the side of the GOP (folks like Whittington singing along). You can see this loud and clear in the Ares/commercial launcher debate.

    There are “Ares huggers”. 9 billion plus dollars and nothing to show for it, but go read Ralph Hall’s piece in Space News.

    Hall, a “good Republican” gets up and sings the praises of free market health care (meaning insurance run health care) all day long, but the “lion of the 4th district of Texas” is all for “socialized rocketry”. Ares hugger. Forget private industry, forget the startup that fires rockets in Texas…Hall is all for a government run program. To soothe his ideology Ares is according to Hall “safer” (and heaven knows we must have safety for our government employee astronauts)…

    Meanwhile Musk is in fact no different then Kindelberger or Douglas or any of the other folks who came up with a better mousetrap…except now they have to compete with a government and right wing who is trying to build their own…and there is no war to make things urgent.

    But “Free Enterprise” is what is going to make the products that will make space travel something other then a government subsidy for Rocket welfare people…and if we dont have free enterprise…we will always have “space is a place” being about 20 years in the future.

    Until Free Enterprise hits the space station, it will always be an object going around in circles looking for a government hand out.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    People, it’d be nice if we could somehow evolve and separate the missions of “free enterprise” from “national enterprise”. Don’t get me wrong though they MUST complement each other. BUT as a Nation the US MUST engage China in several endeavors not just space. Several people pointed out how much easier it would be to work with them and not against them. The notion of “softness” or “weakness” is only that of the weak, sorry. If you have nothing to fear then you can engage in partnership(s). It does not preculde the US from engaging in commercical developments, of all nations the US MUST do it first! It is really annoying now that each camp keeps battling each other.

    IT IS NOT GOVT. VS. PRIVATE!!! IT IS GOVT. WITH PRIVATE!!!

    Can’t ya’ll get it once and for all?!?! And btw, China is NOT the communist country most of you refer to. Is it oppressive? Sure. But it is also a smart nation that has opened to the free market. So if we don’t move NOW we will be behind and following tomorrow. The compartmenlized thinking of some here and elsewhere is just frightening to me. More so than China!

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    I am not sure of the direction of your post…

    I’ll address this

    “China is NOT the communist country most of you refer to. Is it oppressive? Sure. But it is also a smart nation that has opened to the free market.”

    I could not disagree more.

    China is as communist as when everyone walked around in Mao jackets and carried little red books spouting his theories on almost every occassion.

    What has “evolved” if you will is their theories of how to make the “state” successful in terms of using their economy to nourish their political systems.

    Where Soviet style communisim broke down, particularly in the post WW2 era: is that the Soviet leaders, despite rather “heroic’ (grin) efforts could never make their economic system function IN (and this is important) a world where there was “Free Enterprise”. No matter what they did “Free enterprise” could always build a more capable mousetrap.

    There are some lessons that are not important to your point, like how European socialism has evolved, but what the Red Chinese leaders figured out starting around the time of Nixon/Mao interplay was that the key to their survival as a political system was to outdo the west in building the west’s mousetraps.

    They correctly realized that the key to production cost was/is labor…and have cleverly taken advantage of that, and state run capability to make not the mousetraps themselves, but to produce the mousetraps figured out in the US. The airplanes might “for the time being” be designed in the US by Boeing, but Boeing would, all things being equal build them in China (or somewhere else) where labor cost are quite a bit less.

    So far at least in airplanes (and most other things) there is nothing product wise innovative coming out of China….but because their labor is state controlled…the production cost there are quite low.

    Having said that China is to the free market, as Ares is to the free market. IE there is no real relation.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “China is as communist as when everyone walked around in Mao jackets and carried little red books spouting his theories on almost every occassion.”

    Absolutely not! Did you visit China recently? Asia? And btw European “socialism” as you call it has nothing to do with the PRC. Far far from it!

    Not sure why you are mixing Ares with China though.

    The direction of my post is this: China MUST become a partner rather sooner than later “and” IT IS NOT GOVT. VS. PRIVATE!!! IT IS GOVT. WITH PRIVATE!!!

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Absolutely not! Did you visit China recently? Asia? And btw European “socialism” as you call it has nothing to do with the PRC. Far far from it!..

    Recently? Oh it has been 10 years or so but I cannot imagine what metrics you would use to define China as anything but communist in terms of its government organization. The women are wearing heels? (sorry bad joke)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Not sure why you are mixing Ares with China though…

    Ares is a project of the state. There are no major projects in China even ones in theory done by “capitalism” based firms, which are not projects of the state.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Loki

    Actually, China’s government is, like it or not, a Communist regime. All “corporations” in China are state owned and operated entities. That by definitition is communism. Feel free to look it up:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

    The difference between China and other Communist nations is that they’ve figured out how to play the capitalist game for their own benefit. They have a commodity that noone else has (lots and lots of cheap labor) and they “sell” that commodity to the rest of the world. As Oler already alluded to their entire economy is propped up by the fact that they have millions of dirt cheap laborers on whose backs their entire system rests. In fact, they’ve always treated their people like barely more than chattle. Ask any Korean war vet what the term “human wave” means.

    Then of course there’s all the other human rights problems (Tienneman Square, Tibet, etc) over the years. One of Obama’s foreign policy goals was to restore America’s image to the rest of the world. If that is still a goal of his perhaps he should tread lightly when it comes to buddying up to a nation like China.

    It would probably be better to cooperate with our ISS partners going forward and build on that relationship. If China decides they want “in” let them come to us first. Then we can use the “soft power” of international space cooperation to influence their behavior. Put another way, let’s make sure they need us more than we need them, then it’s much easier to get the increased transparency, decreased human rights violations, etc. that we want from them. Being friends just so we can all sing “kumbaya” around the proverbial campfire gets us nothing at best.

  • common sense

    “Oh it has been 10 years or so but I cannot imagine what metrics you would use to define China as anything but communist in terms of its government organization.”

    Look, 10 years in this part of the world is like for dog’s lives. It could as well have been a century since you went. I am not talking about the organization of their government per se. I am talking of how the people there currently live. Yes I know that the country side is more like middle aged then the city side. The point is what direction they chose and are trying to make work for their country. In addition a lot of chinese descendants are all over Asia more or less in charge. China has a lot of influence and will even have more in the future. Why do you want to keep them away from us? What good does it do even to their people? If we open a channel they may very well like what they see and move towards it. Even though this may be somewhat doubtful at this time. The world does not revolve around the US and less and less so. You may believe it or not, it’s not the point. Go check for yourself.

    ” There are no major projects in China even ones in theory done by “capitalism” based firms, which are not projects of the state.”

    Maybe so but you have to start somewhere. Not each and every enterprise in China is government owned. And the trend is to make it more and more private, at least for now. No they will not become the free market economy, a la US, overnight but look at where they were say 50 years ago. I remember people laughing at japanese hardware/cars/etc only 30 years ago… We have a choice TODAY. No decision is a decision. We can work with them or work for them, it’s up to us.

  • Meanwhile Musk is in fact no different then Kindelberger or Douglas or any of the other folks who came up with a better mousetrap…except now they have to compete with a government and right wing who is trying to build their own…and there is no war to make things urgent.

    Robert, is this some sort of Tourette’s thing that causes you to randomly insert the phrase “right wing” into sentences where they make no sense whatsoever?

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    . I am not talking about the organization of their government per se. I am talking of how the people there currently live. ..

    I am talking about the organization of their government, because it is the organization of their government which defines how the people in China “live” work and have their being.

    The government in China, which is not in any stretch of the word a representative one…has control over everything that the people do. Want to have more then 1 child…you have to go get permission to do that. Want to go get up and move to another city? You just dont pack your bags and leave…you have to get permission to do that…and then the government tells you where and how to move.

    What they have managed to do, solely because “we” (the US) has let them is organize their labor force to produce things for us, and get a “penny” for it, that is in fact more supporting the government then producing a better life for their folks. As a result of that “pennY” they are in fact buying our debt. If they did not have that cycle, ie our corporate dollars flowing into China which they bought our debt with, they would just be a few steps off “The Good earth”

    If we can ever break that chain (hard with Walmart having its finger on the pulse of politicians) then the PRC deflates like a cheap suit.

    Everytime we “make nice” with them, and get almost nothing in return we are the ones who sale our power and our influence.

    Let me tell you where the US is headed if The Republic is going to survive. At some point we are going to have to stand up and act like a soverign power, get rid of the hangers on like Walmart and the like who would export anything for a cheap dollar…and tell the Reds (and the Vietnamese and a few others) “we are done with exporting our manufacturing base”

    Otherwise we will as a nation drown in a sea of debt.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand…my favorite poster on my wall says

    “the right wing, the wrong way”

    Long Live The Republic

    Robert G. Oler

  • “The US leads the world in its industry and has invented most of the industry that the world has (airplanes etc) Because it has free enterprise.”
    [Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 12:34 pm]
    Shouldn’t that be a past participle?
    Er and the first powered flight goes to John Stringfellow, England — 1848 And we also gave you the jet engine. And there was the Comet and the Concorde! Sorry, America is just as protectionist as any other nation: q.v.
    “U.S. Air Force tanker contract” Still rumbling on by the looks of things.
    http://blog.al.com/live/2009/09/the_old_images_of_alabama.html
    But then most of your massive MIC is heavily subsidised by your taxes.
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

  • common sense

    Not sure what the point is about their political system Robert. Are we to make deal only with countries “like” us?

    Look I see a lot of complaints about China this or that but how many times do you Robert Oler buy chinese goods? Are you the one person that only buys american? Because otherwise I am afraid there is a lot of hypocrisy in your statements. If you don’t like what China is then you should not buy chinese stuff otherwise you are as guilty as anyone subsidizing the political regime there. Putting one’s head in the sand will not help either. We can face reality, as distressful it may be, and try to fix the problems because they will not go away on their own. Ignoring China is not in our best interest whether we like it or not. So what are we gonna do now? Send all chinese goods back to China and rebuild our industrial base here? I’d love to see that but what are the chances???

  • Rand…my favorite poster on my wall says “the right wing, the wrong way”

    Is that supposed to have some relevance to anything previously discussed in this post?

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ December 1st, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Not sure what the point is about their political system Robert. Are we to make deal only with countries “like” us? ..

    no matter if we deal with countries who “like” us or “dont” like us or “really dont” like us…the key is the same. We should never deal away our national sovereignty or our ability to prosper and advance as a nation or to survive into the future with a better standard of living for our people…who in the case of the US are the sovereign.

    How, mostly Republican but almost all adminstrations since Nixon have dealt with China is based on a simple principle. If we get them “roped into” the concept of capitalism then democracy or representative government will soon follow”…at least that is the oral arguments that most politicians have presented…and folks like Kissinger write that in their books.

    Although that is what is argued at every agreement that we sign with the PRC, agreements that always involve giving them “something” that they want and almost no reciprocity…there is NO repeat NO evidence that any move to that noble concept has taken place. So we have gone from almost no manufactoring of American goods in the PRC under Nixon to where now Boeing is manufactoring substantial chunks of its airplanes there. In the process sending jobs higher and higher up the manufactoring food chain…there.

    Why we really sign agreements with the PRC is that corporations in the US have, for a variety of reasons, mostly corporate profit, wanted to sell things in the US to Americans that use to be manufactured in the US by Americans, but now can be manufactured by Chinese and sold at about the same price that they use to be…splitting the profits between the corporations and the Chinese government. That is how they get the cash to buy our debt. In return our politicians get large campaign contributions.

    A nation which no longer produces things eventually will find its way into the cheap seats of countries. It was funny when what we were talking about was home improvement tools. The fact that Boeing is now building the dreamliner mostly “someplace else” has stopped the laughing.

    As for buying Chinese. If Boeing ever gets the Dreamliner working…

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Robert G. Oler:

    Our society in the US functions almost on a day-to-day basis for planning, marketing, all you can think of: Very short term vision. Very flexible but very short term and risky. On the other hand the Chinese do take their time to do anything. Today, time is on their side: They are big, they are wealthy now, thanks to us, and in no special hurry, and they will slowly and smartly take over. Debt is no sign of power unlike what some would like to you to believe. Debt is a chain you link to your feet. The US is in debt, to China. But it’s clear that I will not “convince” you. However one of us is wrong and the other is right. Time will tell.

    Also, do you really think that all the corporations already established in China will move back to the US? Do you think these corporations are “national” or “transnational” enterprises? Do they care as entities where they make business?

    Oh well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ December 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 am

    @Robert G. Oler:

    Our society in the US functions almost on a day-to-day basis for planning, marketing, all you can think of: Very short term vision. Very flexible but very short term and risky. On the other hand the Chinese do take their time to do anything..

    ah like the cylons they have a plan?

    I’ve heard this a lot of times today it is of the Chinese, in the 80’s it was all the rage with the Japanese. It did not impress me much then, it surely doesnt now, particularly with Japan essentially “the walking broke”.

    But I would make two points.

    First nothing is inevitable. It is hard to remember now so badly has the right wing (slam) attacked the very nature of The Republic while Bush the last was POTUS…but as Bush the last walked onto the deck we were on the verge of starting to pay down not only our deficit, but most importantly our debt. The debt clock was spinning backwards and we were actually funding the unfunded mandates.

    In retrospect Clinton left the deck in a far better way then he found it. Peace, prosperity, and “pleasantness” in our national discourse. Then came the right wing with their tax cutting babble and endless wars and by the time Bush left, doomsayers like you had some grasp on reality.

    The Chinese are now in the condition you mention (or at least appear to be) for two reasons and two reasons only…the American consumer bought at lot of stuff, most of it none essentials made in China and the US deficit spending required us to sell a lot of debt.

    But the key point here is that China deflates just as quickly as we do as a power…if either or both of those things ever stop. Put it another way, the Chinese consumer cannot consume enough, because they are not paid enough to replace the US consumer…there is a working class in China, there is no genuine middle class as per the US (ie with a lot of discretionary wealth).

    On the other hand, with competent leadership in the US, a US middle class can reemerge because when push comes to shove we can if we are lead properly start reinventing the “better mousetrap” …aka Elon Musk…a feature that the rest of the world has a hard time with.

    That is free enterprise.

    We have it, they do not.

    One reason I so oppose Ares and am mystified by the right wing troglodytes who support it, one reason I think it is time to declare victory in Afland and come home, …is that we need to spend our government money on things which make America better and enhance the notion of free enterprise for this century.

    Musk is everything we should want in a startup. He is well financed, his own money, he provides a great workplace (in terms of benefits etc) for his employees…he is producing a product which if successful will either drive Lockmart/Boeing out of the launcher business or will force them to find out how cheaply they can produce their product.

    If the US ever finds leadership (and I am starting to doubt that Obama is it) that refocuses our efforts onto things which are aimed at changing the lives of our people, not our corporations or folks at the top 10 percent of The Republic (the brainwashing on that by the right wing troglodytes is amazing) you will find this country can do what it has always done under such leadership…take off in terms of our future.

    Calls to bring the Chinese into ISS are echoes of the old ways.

    You are correct, one of us is correct and the other is wrong. I am betting I am correct. we have a child on the way.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ December 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 am

    Also, do you really think that all the corporations already established in China will move back to the US? Do you think these corporations are “national” or “transnational” enterprises? Do they care as entities where they make business?..

    most US corporations could not function outside the US. if they had acted as they acted in the PLA instead of the US, the folks who did the bad things that they have done would have been taken outside and shot, instead of given government bailouts.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “On the other hand, with competent leadership in the US, a US middle class can reemerge because when push comes to shove we can if we are lead properly start reinventing the “better mousetrap” ”

    Yeah, if if if if if, very iffy…

    ” it is time to declare victory in Afland and come home,”

    Looks like it won’t happen for another 18 months…

    We shall see who is right Robert… We shall see.

  • Eric Sterner

    @ Major Tom:

    I checked out Dwayne’s article and don’t think he debunked much of anything when it comes to lasing U.S. satellites, work on microsatellites, or formation flying.

    The “lasing/painting” of a U.S. satellite is not based on reading textual tea leaves in 2002-2004 versions of CMP by Jeffrey Lewis or Dwayne Day. It’s based on public comments by Donald Kerr, head of the NRO, in 2006, when he indicated that a g-based Chinese laser had painted a U.S. satellite. (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-05-satellite-laser_x.htm; You can also check out a white paper from the Project 2049 Institute, which relies on open-source info to discuss some of these episodes.), I did not say that the specific lasing episode caused damage or was an ASAT. To my knowledge, neither did Kerr. But, clearly, it demonstrates the ability to target a satellite. Dwayne did not mention Kerr’s comments, which I find curious. (Did I miss it?) If Kerr retracted them, or later modified them, I’d appreciate someone letting me know.

    As for work on microsatellites, I did not accuse the Chinese of developing parasitic microsatellites (the report that Dwayne assumes Kulacki successfully “debunked”), although such applications are clearly within the realm of possibility. I simply noted that they were working on microsatellite technology. China plans to piggyback the Yinguo-1 microsatellite on Russia’s Phobos-Grunt mission and partnered with Surrey Space Technology LLC (probably the world’s innovation leader in small spacecraft and microsatellites) for the DMC+4 (micro) and Beijing-1 (small) satellites. You could also take a look at the 9-9-09 issue of Asia Times Online, which has an article by Peter Brown that offers a decent overview of China’s work on microsatellites and formation flying. (He cited Eric Hagt at the World Security Institute, hardly a right-leaning organization.)

    There are, of course, multiple civil, commercial, and military applications for such capabilities and Chinese officials deny military intent for them. But, to the degree that threat is a function of intent and capability, China has demonstrated impressive space capabilities which it clearly is improving while its national security community bluntly recognizes a need to hold U.S. space assets at risk during any conflict. Discounting the threat strikes me as whistling past the graveyard, much as the academic community did with regard to Chinese counterspace intentions right up until China demonstrated a kinetic ASAT capability.

    In any event, I’m quite comfortable with my understanding of the facts.

    Good points on the relevant military potential of various civil space technologies. Some certainly are of more concern than others. Indeed, more than a few folks are only half joking when they suggest the surest way to ruin Chinese space ambitions and send them down the “wrong” path is to suck them into cooperation with the human spaceflight program.

    That said, I’m not fond of cooperation in civil space for reasons that go well beyond concerns about tech transfer. But, I’m not averse to exploring the potential vis-a-vis China if for no other reason than it could promote greater transparency. That’s why I suggested coordination, and not cooperation. What do I mean by coordination? Go back and take a look at how the major spacepowers launched missions to look at Halley’s comet. Basically, agencies agreed to study the same event/phenomenon, but conducted their missions independently and shared science results. They weren’t doing technology or platform integration. If you want to work with China, you could do something similar. For example, both states could decide that they want to better understand the albedo of smog as a forcing factor in climate change. We could build something like the A train in earth science, where our spacecraft follows theirs by a few hours so we get different looks at “smog” in the same location at different times of the day. Yes, there are tech transfer risks even in this since data needs to be calibrated, which usually means exchanging information about sensors, but those risks may be more easily managed because you minize the points of contact technologically.

    That’s the thing about op-eds, there’s only so much you can say in 750 words. Nuance, detail, and scenarios aren’t usually found in the format.

    Two cents worth.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Eric Sterner …

    nice comments. I would make two points

    First I am not all that impressed with the concept of microsats (I know sounds supiciously like the guy at JSC who told a friend and I …”I am not all that excited about networked computer systems”…ok but that statement from that person was in 1998.) as a military system (or really much of anything).

    Surrey has done some neat stuff with them but the entire theory of microsats as an ASAT capability evolves around them being undetectable by ground base emitters or optics. To have them do anything other then (what we call in the amateur radio business ) be “bleep sats” requires a certain mass…for propulsion etc and we have very good detection capabilities.

    I would be far more worried about a Chinese or some other country decapitation effort by using say a lunar probe as a guise to head to the Moon, do a free return (or separate some sort of sub satellite) come back to earth space “dark” and do something nasty. And I am not really worried all that much about such “attacks” on space assets. Destruction of assets is not how I see space warfare going.

    Secondly (and to the point of the thread) what value do you see in cooperating with the PRC other then “transparency”?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense

    I am not telling you that “good leadership” particularly in our political system is all that easy to come by.

    Starting with JFK and going to BHO (who I wont rate now because the jury is still out on him)…In my view we have had three successful presidents JFK, RWR and WJC (ie Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton). That is in my view three out of eight (to be fair to Ford he never really had a chance to be successful and he did stabilize the political system after Nixon…which was a serious trauma).

    The rest have been either benign (Bush the old) to bad (Carter) to catastrophic (Bush the last and Johnson) Our political system is particularly vunerable to extremes on the edges of both parties who are incapable of looking past their “pet” issues at the larger picture. Since I like to slam the far right…it was just hard for them to look past Lewinsky and see how well Clinton left The Republic.

    But folks like Musk point the way to how the US can dig out of this “problem”. “A lot of Musks” is exactly what The Republic needs in everything from rockets to cars to energy. And they are there if we can put the government on a track to encourage them.

    As you said one of us will be correct. According to my latest flight physical I have quite a while left to see how it works out (see my facebook page for the particulars)…nice when you have a BP of 115/65

    Robert G. Oler

  • Since I like to slam the far right…it was just hard for them to look past Lewinsky and see how well Clinton left The Republic.

    Not that I’m “far right” (what an obsessive compulsive disorder you have with these imaginary people — kind of like Mark Whittington’s Internet Rocketeer Club)), but do you mean with a popping tech bubble, and Osama bin Laden and KSM plotting 911, and the intelligence “wall” preventing the FBI and CIA from sharing info? That kind of “well”?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand. I would respond but dont feel that Bush bashing no matter how personally satisfying it is…. for his failures leading up to the 9/11 attack or his failure to get OBL and KSM at Tora Bora,or his running away from the battle on 9/11, or starting two useless wars and prosecuting them ineptly, or Dr. “Condi” Rice’s failures to do her job and manage the “wall” (which should exist) between intel and law enforcement agencies is “on topic”.nor is what defines right wingers or far right folks…(hint they believe that Clinton murdered people…)

    The tech bubble bursting, which is pure economics and almost no President could deal with perhaps is slightly more so, but less…

    And I know that you are a sticker for on topic post. and after my physical I am in a great mood.

    enjoy the afternoon, I am

    Robert G. Oler

  • I wasn’t defending Bush. I was just pointing out that Clinton left him a mess, just as Bush left Obama a mess.

  • Loki

    “for his failures leading up to the 9/11 attack ”

    For the record, I’m not a particularly big fan of W, to put it mildly, but what failures are you referring to here? He was only in office for ~9 months when 9/11 happened, and we know now that the hijackers were in the country for several years prior to the attack, and the planning for it likewise took years.

    The “wall” between the FBI and CIA? That went back a long way, before Clinton; too, for that matter.

    The “Phoenix memo”? Just to play devil’s advocate, put yourself in the shoes of the FBI director. You get this memo from a field office that there are potential muslim terrorists infiltrating US flight schools. Don’t know why, can’t even say for certain that they’re terrorists, just that they’re muslims who seem to be fans of bin Laden. How seriously would you take it? Of course hindsight being 20/20…

    So exactly what failures?

    (not to pull the post too far off-topic, I’m just wondering/ playing Devil’s Advocate)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Loki wrote @ December 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    “for his failures leading up to the 9/11 attack ”

    For the record, I’m not a particularly big fan of W, to put it mildly, but what failures are you referring to here? He was only in office for ~9 months when 9/11 happened, ..

    ok

    Criminal endeavors (and that was what 9/11 was) are like a pregnancy. They are almost indecipherable from “normal” activities in their early stage, but get quite obvious as they mature and in the last few months before execution should be quite clear in what they are aiming for. If one is looking.

    Pre 9/11 “foreigners” doing flight training was not that unique, ARab students doing flight training was quite common. Saudis routinely did it for Saudia (the national airline) the RSAF and for their own private concerns (Osama’s sister, Carmen, got her 737 type rating in the US slightly before 9/11) in the country. The main undergraduate flight training “mills” are in Fl and Arizona. The week of 9/11 for example… my company had 9 students getting B737 type ratings. 1 was Pakistani (he is now a Captain for Southwest) and 2 were Saudis (both fly for Saudia now).

    All the things that the folks who manipulated the controls of the hijacked planes did up to the summer of 01 would have been very very hard to distinguish from routine airline ab initio training. That is Precisely what OBL picked mostly SAudis and how the “flyers” got into the country to do.

    What was ‘odd’ and started to flag the attention of the FBI and the spooks was that in the summer of 01 they started getting reports from folks who had access to Level C simulators (and that is not a large group) that certain people were trying to buy time on the sims for “unique” purposes. Now that is not all that odd, even today my company sells “joy rides” to people for their birthday or whatever ie 2-4 hours in a Boeing that is loggable from an instructor. But most of these people want to “just fly”. Do a landing with IP help etc. They dont care to learn the minimum of the AFDS or the FMS or things you would need to actually take the airplane somewhere if you didnt know what you were doing. They dont ask questions like “where do the flight attendants keep the spare keys” (to the door pre 9/11) Those were reported to the appropriate authorities.

    That and some other reasons is why the folks went down to the ranch in Crawford and spent sometime trying to get all the genius of the last administration interested enough to do some simple things…like bring the airport security threat level a notch higher or a few other suggestions (mostly to ping law enforcement assets for information) all of which were ignored by Mr. Bush and Dr. Rice. Dr. Rice in her then role by statute was the “bridge” between intelligence and law enforcement.

    I really dont blame Bush all that much. OBL is/was a smart guy and could “think out of the box” about how to do something. If a person or group can do that…they usually get the first punch.

    What I dont like is the right wing blaming Clinton for 9/11. During his time in office, it would have been almost impossible to have picked up what was happening. Or put it another way. If Clinton should have seen it, Bush had the same apparatus as President, he really should have.

    It must be hard for OBL to overstate his success. I really think all he felt 9/11 would do was kill Americans en mass and cause some economic disruption. 9 years later, he is still alive, we have engaged in activities which have helped bring our economy down to its knees and lost more people then on 9/11 in mostly futile efforts ..and he is still alive.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ December 2nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    I wasn’t defending Bush. I was just pointing out that Clinton left him a mess, just as Bush left Obama a mess…

    that you even imply that the “messes” left by Mr. Clinton anywhere compares with the “messes” that Mr. Bush left as he walked out the door qualifies you for the right wing club.

    All Presidents leave unfinished business. Bush the last just about finished us the US

    Robert G. Oler

  • What I dont like is the right wing blaming Clinton for 9/11. During his time in office, it would have been almost impossible to have picked up what was happening.

    One doesn’t have to be part of the “right wing” (what an idiotic use of the phrase) to point out that Clinton turned down an opportunity to take Osama into custody. This “right wing” this and “right wing” that is why I can’t take any of your political nonsense seriously.

  • Eric Sterner

    @Robert Oler

    I appreciate your point on microsats. It’s not clear to me that the powers that be have thought through all the possibilities or consequences, but they open up new architectural possibilities and are intriguing for a range of potential roles and missions. I don’t see that stealth/detectability is the main driver of their potential as ASATs. I’d be more concerned about the possibility of packing a boatload of them into a very small number of launch vehicles, which would represent a signficant development in the ability to stick a lot of nasty stuff in orbit very, very quickly. Salvo attacks become more feasible.

    Anyway, I haven’t seen a compelling strategic argument that it’s in the US interest to pursue closer space cooperation with China, by which I mean the kind we have pursued with ESA and Japan for decades and with Russia for the last 15+ years. Suggestions for closer cooperation have a “because we can” feel to them or because folks envision some sort of grand space initiative, without identifying the benefits of such an initiative.

    With Russia, the Clinton Administration envisioned very real and substantive benefits of: 1) getting the Russians to cancel a deal to transfer rocket technology to India; 2) keeping Russian design bureaus from going into the proliferation business to stay afloat; 3) accelerating the deployment, and reducing the cost, of the ISS. I’d say they achieved goal #1 (although I heard that the technology still was transferred under the table, never saw much evidence, though.) Failed in goals #2 and 3. They also envisioned the partnership as symbolizing Russia’s joining the community of liberal democracies. It was a nice thought and a valid symbol until the Russians handed their democracy over to Vladimir Putin. From the perspective of the space program, we did learn a ton from them and secured a second means of getting people up and down to ISS. (Of course, Soyuz enabled the US to duck its obligations to develop a CRV, so one could argue Soyuz was a net harm by serving as a crutch for far too long.) On the whole, and in hindsight, I think the cons outweighed the pros, but you can’t accuse the Clinton Admin of not having a solid rationale for cooperation.

    Don’t see it in the case of China. They’re not about to slow down their military modernization, change their trade policies, or suddenly become more cooprative vis-a-vis Iran and North Korea because of a space partnership. So, I don’t see strategic benefits.

    From the perspective of the space program, I don’t see much benefit there either. Other than some wishful thinking, there’s no evidence that they’re capable of, or interested in, helping us accelerate plans to set up a lunar base or go back to the moon. Can they solve our resource problem for us? No, since they’re not about to give us cash. Can/should we offload critical moon-Mars capabilities on them and reduce our own costs? Sure, but if it’s critical path stuff (which is all that even the most optimistic NASA budgets would fund), why do the Chinese need us? So, to my mind, there’s not a lot to be said for close cooperation in human spaceflight. Even if you cobbled something together, would it still be desirable in a few years when the Chinese next crack down on Tibet, democracy protestors, etc. etc. etc.? If civil space still contributes to soft power, it seems to me that being in bed with an authoritarian regime tends to send the wrong message.

    Things might be different in space and earth science missions, which are typically one-shot deals and don’t require the kind of long-term marriage that true cooperation in human spaceflight demands. As I mentioned earlier, by coordinating some activities, it might be possible to contribute more to the general cause of increasing the sum total of human knowledge than would activities undertaken in isolation from one another and to do so more cost effectively. Such possiblities would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    Of course, all of that assumes you can satisfactorily address tech transfer and intellectual property problems and develop coordinated activities that don’t significantly contribute to China’s defense industrial base.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Eric Sterner great comments

    (and on thread…sorry for the deviation)

    A few points

    First there is no one who opposed Russian cooperation on ISS more then I. While I look back on the op eds in the news papers and Space News/Av Leak and think wow those were good ideas…to be fair Psycho Dan gets the A plus award on the station. While I (and some others) would argue about doing the station differently and that would be more efficient etc.

    If one was going to do the station how it was going to be done (and that is regretful) the reality in my view is that 1) the Russians were essential and 2) they were probably key to getting it on orbit.

    In retrospect NASA is not capable of major space projects that it actually “builds” or “manages” anymore. The station should have shown us that. If we were going to wait for NASA and its contractors to get their act together on things like the Service Module (which is still a vital apart of the station) we would still be waiting. The Russians bring a bit of technical reality to the effort that NASA has not been capable of in years…and of your 1-3 reasons, I honestly think that the only one really that worked was 3…except I dont think that we kept the design bureaus out of proliferation, but I think we kept them firmly in the space business.

    My impression “today” is that we have more then gotten our money’s worth out of the Russians and indeed most of the partners. I doubt that NASA and US contractors could have put together most of the things that the Europeans have actually built. At least for the price that we have paid. The NASA/Contractor relationship is just completly dysfunctional.

    Second. IN my view anyone who thought that Ivan would end up with a “Jeffersonian” democracy was as stupid as the folks who thought Iraq would end up with one (Oh wait in some instances they were the same people). But how the Russian government is evolving doesnt really “twist” me much BECAUSE I honestly think that it is what MOST Russians want.

    I am sure that there are a lot of “real democracy” people in Russia, and of course our policy has shafted them…but my read on the country is that what they are evolving to is “what works for them”. (Iraq will if we are lucky evolve to something that “works for them” )

    I think that the PRC is something that works for most Chinese…the difference in my view is that 1) it doesnt work for this country, and 2) I dont see any real need to cooperate with them. I’ll address the first part because you have I think covered the second.

    While the Russian government is at times annoying (see Georgia) unlike the Chinese theory of economics on the back of cheap labor…it doesnt terminally affect The Republic.

    As long as the policies of this nation (the US) allow US companies to ship the manufactoring base overseas (where the middle class thrives) and then sale those goods to Americans…with no hope or ability to reverse the process (Ie we build things that the PRC people buy) …it is a mortal threat to our country…more then anything OBL or even the USSR in its heyday could match.

    I think that cycle must end, and if that means we are “not nice” with the PRC thats fine with me. If we cut the chord, no other country in the world can have its consumer base used, as ours has been to support their government and the Reds will start returning back to their normal size.

    Hence I would not cooperate with them on telling the time of day.

    Robert G. oler

  • Loki

    “What I dont like is the right wing blaming Clinton for 9/11″

    Just for clarity, I don’t blame Clinton for 9/11 either, but I also don’t blame Bush. I think it was a systemic failure of our intelligence and law enforcement apparatus at the federal level, probably brought on by the shear size of the bureaucracy. In fact, in many cases the local law enforcement apparati worked fine. The infamous “Phoenix memo”, the flight instructor who reported Moussawi (sp?), the 20th hijacker, for asking to learn how to fly a plane but not how to land to the local authorities in MN, etc. There’s no doubt plenty of other examples of local oficials who did their jobs well and were let down by the “big wigs in D.C.”

    Moving on, back on topic…
    As has already been hashed out by others, there were some strategic foreign policy goals for including the Russians in the ISS. I doubt that there really are any strategic goals or benefits that could be derived from working with China on space at this point. Some might say cost sharing, but how well has that really worked out on the ISS? There are some costs incurred by working with other countries such as flying to them for face to face meetings (you can’t do everything over email, afterall), just as an example. So was it really any cheaper than going it alone? I’m not sure anyone has ever really looked into that.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Loki.

    Off topic…(on topic is next)

    I dont blame Bush for 9/11. Gore (who I think would have been a far better president, but we will never know of course, even assuming the challenges remain the same) probably would have had 9/11 happen on his watch…and in my view the right wing (Rand/Whittington/and the national players) would have said the EXACT opposite of what they said in defending Bush…Even if Gore had done everything that Bush did.

    My “gripe” with the right (and left) wing is that their assessment of facts is colored completly by their political bent. To say again. If Gore had been POTUS and everything had played out exactly as it did with Bush, including the folks who came “to the ranch” and gave the briefing…the folks who with Bush say “he was only in office 9 months” would have been saying “it was all Gore’s fault”.

    Having said that. It is fair completly fair to say that Bush dealt with the run up to 9/11 and the workings of his administration in much the same way as he dealt with everything else…ie he and his genius saw it through their predetermined ideology. You cannot go watch Wolfie testifying about the number of troops needed to garrison Iraq post
    Saddam fall, compare it to what Shinseki said and say Wolfie was either stupid or was not trying to snow the American public. As it turned out almost everything that they did in their administration was seen through ideology and was wrong.

    The irony is that apparently the closest we have got to killing OBL, was when Clinton tossed the cruise missiles at him. Something folks like Mark Whittington just went ape over.

    (as an aside, I voted for McCain but no one has been more doubting of Obama’s afland policy then I…see my facebook page).

    On topic

    “So was it really any cheaper than going it alone? ” I dont think such a study would tell much…because I dont think that NASA could have built ISS or Freedom for that matter. I dont think that they could for the same reason I dont think Ares/Constellation will ever get built. or more correctly get built for a price we can afford.

    From 1984 to the time ISS was on stage, the entire history of the station was one design floundering after another. They (NASA) never could put together a design that was practical for the money available…If ISS had not pushed Freedom aside, and the effort kept going…I dont think we would ahve much in orbit today.

    Robert G. Oler

  • …in my view the right wing (Rand/Whittington/and the national players) would have said the EXACT opposite of what they said in defending Bush…

    Which is why your view is nuts, at least with respect to me. But we’ve come to expect that from you. I am not “right wing.”

    The irony is that apparently the closest we have got to killing OBL, was when Clinton tossed the cruise missiles at him.

    No, Clinton had, and turned down, an opportunity to take him into custody.

  • common sense

    Let’s assume for a minute that Orion/Ares is cancelled (or not even on tim to service ISS, not to mention beyond LEO stuff) and that CCDev fails then what? We only fly Soyuz? Would it not be smarter to have Shenzou as a competing provider?

    Now maybe you think that Orion/Ares will be available before the end of ISS or that CCDev or COTS-D will succeed then of course my argument above (regardless of the soft power idea) is moot…

    Oh well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    OFF TOPIC

    Rand Simberg wrote @ December 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    The irony is that apparently the closest we have got to killing OBL, was when Clinton tossed the cruise missiles at him.

    No, Clinton had, and turned down, an opportunity to take him into custody…

    Rand your rants on off topic post not withstanding I’ll bite just this once because what you have said is completly out of context and shows your right wing ideology.

    First I noted that the closest anyone got to killing OBL was Clinton. That is a fact. We almost got him in Afland and the right wing went mostly nuts when Clinton tossed the cruise missiles.

    Then you bring up the Sudan thing.

    Your statement is illustrative of right wing thinking. AT best when there was this discussion between Sudan and the US with SAudi ARabia about OBL…and it was never a clear cut offer…this was when OBL was not wanted for anything in the US.

    Plus it would have required a viewpoint from Clinton that no one really had on OBL in that time frame.

    Your viewpoint is almost like saying “When Castro was washing dishes in Washington, we could have headed off the Cuban revolution had he been taken into custody”

    I know what you believe, and thats your right…but it is not conducive with the facts. and that is my point on this.

    BTW you are a charlatan for complaining about off topic post and being the one who veers so frequently off topic.

    Robert G. Oler

  • shows your right wing ideology.

    Sorry, no, it just shows my knowledge of history. And you lack of knowledge of ideologies.

    Your viewpoint is almost like saying “When Castro was washing dishes in Washington, we could have headed off the Cuban revolution had he been taken into custody”

    What a moronic analogy. It was quite clear at the time how dangerous bin Laden was.

  • […] Caution about US-China space cooperation – Space Politics […]

Leave a Reply to Rand Simberg Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>