One of the few specific space policy provisions included in the final continuing resolution that funds the federal government through the rest of fiscal year 2011 has to do with cooperation with China–or, rather, prohibiting cooperation with China. The CR prevents NASA and OSTP from using any funds to “develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company” unless specifically authorized in a future law. That also prevents NASA from using any funds “to effectuate the hosting of official Chinese visitors at facilities belonging to or utilized by” the space agency. That would appear to put the brakes on any prospects for cooperation with China, at least through this fiscal year.
However, in testimony before the CJS subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, OSTP director John Holdren suggested that the administration has found a “loophole” in that ban, according to ScienceNow. The White House has concluded, he said, that the provision doesn’t extend to “prohibiting interactions that are part of the president’s constitutional authority to conduct negotiations.” That includes, he said, a bilateral agreement on scientific cooperation between the two countries that dates back to 1979.
Holdren, Space News reported, has pragmatic reasons for seeking cooperation with China on space exploration in particular, including a future human expedition to Mars. “If China is going to be, by 2030, the biggest economy in the world… it could certainly be to our benefit to share the costs of such an expensive venture with them and with others,” he said.
That did not sit well with some members of the subcommittee, including chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), who has been very critical of China, in particular its human-rights record. An “irate” Wolf, as described by Space News, criticized the idea of Sino-American space cooperation, “repeatedly pounding a hand against the table top in front of him.” However, according to ScienceNow, Wolf appeared to accept Holdren’s constitutional explanation, asking for consultation on “a case-by-case basis” when any administration dealing with China might conflict with the law. By contrast, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), another subcommittee member, was not assuaged at all by Holdren’s statements, warning Holdren that “you’re endangering your funding and NASA’s funding” by contemplating any cooperation with China. “You have a huge problem on your hands.”
Third world countries always want to partner with ‘first world’ countries.
So, despite Congressional attempt to thwart any kind of partnership with China, we, as a third world country, need China!
They have money, we don’t.
They have long term space aspirations backed by commitments from their government. We don’t.
Wow, that’s quite a showdown. This clip of Holdren is more than a little creepy in retrospect.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6RYzZt0gU#t=2m12s
“If China is going to be, by 2030, the biggest economy in the world… it could certainly be to our benefit to share the costs of such an expensive venture with them and with others,â€
Holdren is not a space policy maker. He is a burned out 60’s Malthusian who hates America. When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, Holdren was burning flags at Harvard. America won’t be surpassed by China is we abandon his socialist agenda now, and return to being the high growth, high opportunity country we were meant to be.
I agree with Frank Wolf. The US should have no space cooperation with China beyond managing the orbital debris, and radio frequency environment. Why arm your enemy?
Oink, oink, oink … Sign a deal with China that directs a contract to someone in their district, and these porkers have Mao posters on their office walls.
China hawks are idiots. The U.S. relationship with China could well be the most important one of this century and it serves no sane interest to continually peg them as our “enemy.” Those reactionaries who insist that we must have a Big Adversary are living in the Cold War past.
Ellegood, while I don’t expect everyone to care about human rights enough to actually take a stand against China, I did expect more from this administration.
A few things we need to remember.
China will be our major competition, economically and militarily for the foreseeable future.
Our greatest strength has been innovation while up till this point, China’s has been replication. That can be seen clearly by the fact that we are flying, for the time being, space shuttles and China is flying modified versions of the Soyuz. Also, major manufacturers wishing to sell to China have technology transfers written into their agreements. To stay on top, or even to stay competitive, we need to retain the technology that we develop. At this point, China stands to gain far more from us than we will from them. Cooperation should only go so far.
Given Holdren’s previous stands against US dominance economically and militarily, I have a no confidence in his ability to make judgments about the extent of the US’s cooperation with ANY country much less China.
While China’s abysmal human rights record is certainly an issue, the US record in the Middle East and Africa runs a close second when it comes to policy, so “who shall cast the first stone” might be appropriate here.
NASA Fan has a point and taking it as a case by case basis seems logical to me.
Windy’s retro-nationalism, as always, has no root in reality. Except in neo-con Orwell World.
Trent: Candidates on both sides of the aisle (and Congressmen who don’t have to actually implement foreign policy) press for a hard line on China’s human rights abuses. But presidents learn quickly that other geopolitical and economic issues are more pressing, and that diplomacy and cooperation on those other fronts can be more effective in improving China’s human rights policies. I’m not saying China’s human rights problems should be ignored.
One requirement of any cooperation with China – more translation, negotiation about contributions, cultural training, etc etc. Just doing business with the Russians slows us down – mostly due to the way it has been done. If we bought things from them it would be much easier. But when you work with a much different organization, it slows things down, it confuses operations, etc. Now we want to have everything in English, Russian, and Chinese??
Working with the Europeans is pretty easy these days, after decades of cooperation. Working with the japanese is a bit more difficult partly due to their cultural differences. But they also bring resources to the table.
There is some wisdom to be wary of China. Their “White paper” from last year suggests their space goal is to deny US use of it’s communication and surveillance satellites in the vent of a conflict. Their intentional smashing of satellites was a warning to the US about what they are capable of in space for very few dollars (yen). Russia’s experience with China reverse engineering two advanced fighter jets justifies a hard line on tech transfer. 20 years of trade deficits is not accidental, nor incidental, it is manipulation. Strategic metals is another example of China’s manipulation of US economic and political policy.
If Wolf wants to keep ahead of China maybe he might want to reconsider NASA’s funding levels and maybe even look more generously to those ‘new commercial’ space companies who’ve already shown how to beat China on the space frontier.
“Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), another subcommittee member, was not assuaged at all by Holdren’s statements, warning Holdren that “you’re endangering your funding and NASA’s funding†by contemplating any cooperation with China. “You have a huge problem on your hands.â€
so now the GOP which was for one trade deal after the next with the PRC is getting cold feet over a little space cooperation that probably wont happen?
I dont like anything about out China policy but the least of our problems is some modest (and it wont happen soon) space cooperation, when we are exporting one job after the next there.
Robert G. Oler
If China, then why not Iran if we’re going to partner with dictatorships?
Wow almost too good to be true. Those clowns Wolf and Culbertson are actually planning to cut NASA budget already! China is only but a pretext.
Strong supporters of NASA??? I am sure NASA does not need enemies with supporters like them.
When are they going to give NASA the budget for SLS and MPCV? WHEN?
NASA Fan: “They have long term space aspirations backed by commitments from their government. We don’t.”
To be clear, China is only committed to a small space station (a “runt” even compared to Mir) some 10+ years in the future. We have the ISS now. There’s really no comparison.
smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/an-early-peek-at-china-8217s-space-station/7024
Mr. Waddington: “… I don’t expect everyone to care about human rights enough to actually take a stand against China, I did expect more from this administration.”
I doubt that the civil space program has much value in influencing China’s human rights record going forward. But if it does, the only way to exercise that value is by seeking out areas of potential cooperation and making changes in China’s behavior a precondition to cooperation.
Mr. Earl: “At this point, China stands to gain far more from us than we will from them.”
Not necessarily. For example, in the event of a bad day on Soyuz, it sure would be nice to have a Shenzhou backup for ISS crew transport over the next 3-4 years. It would be even nicer if we could have Russia and China bidding against each other for the privelege.
FWIW…
China hasn’t launched a human space flight in over 2 1/2 years. It’s just laughable that certain Republicans try to paint China as leading us in human space flight.
@ Trent Waddington wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 10:41 am
“while I don’t expect everyone to care about human rights enough to actually take a stand against China, I did expect more from this administration.”
Trent, here is the problem. I think you can get this on your own. But in any case. China is the fastest growing economy. They will be first soon. That’s for the economic reason in a nutshell. About human rights. For sure there are violations. No one will deny that. Would you expect China to come clean in what 1 year? 1 decade? 1 century? How long do you think it’ll take? We can either help them or we cannot. What is important is the progress they make towards human rights. And so far they are lifting their people off of poverty, thanks to us sure. They will not suddenly change into a US democracy. The chinese model is far different from ours. So again how about we help them? It will take decades if not more to reach the level we want them to be at with our help. Without… Possibly even more. Note that even if the central government in China or even the party were to say they impose human rights it will not happen. Corruption is engrained at the local, municipal level if not deeper. It is a huge territory and difficult to control. You do change ways of life acquired over millenia in a split second, not even a year.
I like the parallel with Iran. In China, like in Iran, the youth (used to?) like the US. They like the capitalist model of self improvement and enrichment. We can help or go with trivial fights. In Iran we “fight” and the result is Ahmadinejad in China we cooperate and the result is a more open China.
What would you like best?
“If China, then why not Iran if we’re going to partner with dictatorships?”
Because Iran sponsors terrorism directed against the United States and China doesn’t.
Duh…
And China, for all its one-party rule, is not a dictatorship.
Sigh…
@ Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 11:52 am
“If China, then why not Iran if we’re going to partner with dictatorships?”
You mean like Saddam Hussein? Or Ghadafi? Ever read a little history before making idiotic claims. And who is “we” in your question?
@ Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 11:52 am
How about Saudi Arabia? Should we make deal with them? Why? Why not?
My argument, at least the space argument, there are geo political arguments against cooperating with the Chinese is if the goal is to “go to Mars” and that is why we are doing it, then the goal is a nutty one, and every thing that flows from it is equally nutty.
China and the US are at different places in our modern national history. The PRC is trying to establish the bonds of both nationhood and “world power” Thanks to a lot of US policies over the last 10 years the PRC has a lot of money, more then they can spend, so they are spending it on a lot of things that have value to them because they can be done…but not a lot of other value. Plus their human spaceprogram is not moving “all that quickly”.
The US on the other hand is entering the “mature” time of our superpower life and we have no real need to “Impress” the world with a series of “first”.
Killing our number 1 enemy did more to “impress” our friends and foes alike then any effort at going to Mars or the Moon.
A Mars goal is goofy on so many levels…and other then that I have not heard or read a single other technically or politically sound reason to crank up a lot of cooperation with the PRC. Plus I dont think that they want it.
Robert G. Oler
Windy wrote:
“America won’t be surpassed by China is we abandon his socialist agenda now, and return to being the high growth, high opportunity country we were meant to be”
So for the last two years you have ranted on having a big government socialist space program and denigrated SpaceX at every opportunity. Even China can’t compete with an American company. But you constantly rail against American entrepreneurship and call for big government. President Obama calls for capitalism in the space program and for that it is a socialist agenda, but your Stalinist model for a government space program is what? High growth high opportunity?
Give me a break.
It is interesting the reaction the merest mention of “manned flight to Mars” gets here.
There are other areas where relations with China are immediate operational problems in space, and immediate economic problems here on the surface.
US-China relations is a huge problem, and my opinion is that the committee will be kept fully advised of any negotiations pertaining to their area of responsibilities.
As I’ve mentioned before, it will be several years before China has demonstrated docking technologies, and any negotiations even on ISS use will have to be multi-partner, involving Russia, Japan, Europe, etc.
While no one here has considered it, it may end up that China will be offering the US a role in a future manned space project, particularly if China enters into partnerships with other international partners first. What the US would do in that case naturally would depend on China’s overall policies, and the state of US-China relations at that time.
Getting down to the basics, another interesting item. Many fundamentalist Christians consider abortion to be murder, but they can not face the moral delimna of when there are very constrained food supplies and a birth here means a death by starvation there. That’s a much much harder question to face.
Given that delimna and the wide variety of views and beliefs here in the US, I suspect that China’s attitudes towards Christian religions and religions in general will play a large role in future relations.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
“A Mars goal is goofy on so many levels…and other then that I have not heard or read a single other technically or politically sound reason to crank up a lot of cooperation with the PRC. Plus I dont think that they want it.”
Nah. You (?) give too much importance to this. A collaboration for a trip to Mars only is a symbol. The price tag will be enormous. For a one-off mission, a la Apollo, ridiculously so. For a long term exploration of space, well, it will be hmm long term. Nobody even has the infrastructure. And no I don’t think that SpaceX can do it, not now anyway. A “suicidal” mission maybe so but a real mission, no. I suspect that if China gets involved then the other space agencies around the world will be as well, not just NASA, not just the US. If the lead comes from us so much the better but that’s about it. Those pity of Congress people arguing against China are just hypocrits. Let’s stop selling Boeing to China and see how it goes just as an example… Let’s stop buying cheap goods from China and see how it goes… Congress seems to spout every other nonsense every other day or hour or minute. The interest of the US is to colaborate with China, the closer the better for economic reasons as well as security reasons. They may not sponsor terrorism but they may buy goods from other states that sponsor terrorism or have close ties, historical and otherwise, with them…
China is not the USSR. It is not Iran. It is not Iraq. It is not Afghanistan. They are way more open than any of them yet very closed up as well. A chinese contradiction if you will…
MT: Just a few things…
It’s not know if the Shenzhou docking systems is compatible with the Russian docking ports on the ISS. How long would it would take to qualify the Shenzhou for docking to the ISS and would it be that much faster than Dragon or the Boeing craft? Since there are always at least 2 Soyuz craft docked at the ISS at any time and considering that the Soyuz has performed very well and reliably for the last 35 years, I think adding Shenzhou would not add much capability.
“If China, then why not Iran if we’re going to partner with dictatorships?â€
“Because Iran sponsors terrorism directed against the United States and China doesn’t.
Duh…â€
China has played a big role in supplying weapons and technology to Iran and North Korea and Pakistan and other states of known ill repute. So China may not DIRETLY sponsor terrorism they very much sponsor it indirectly.
Major Tom wrote:
“Because Iran sponsors terrorism directed against the United States and China doesn’t.”
Not to be a stickler but isn’t China a constant threat on computer systems? But I would imagine we are constantly trying to break into their’s also.
” in the event of a bad day on Soyuz, it sure would be nice to have a Shenzhou backup for ISS crew transport over the next 3-4 years”
Wouldn’t that have to be conditional on them keeping a more active human launch program? I do not know what their lead times are but they have only flown three times in years and are not scheduled to do a human launch for a few more. I do like the idea of some more competition to Russian launches. They are sure milking the cow as it stands.
President Obama calls for capitalism in the space program and for that it is a socialist agenda, but your Stalinist model for a government space program is what?
President Obama and Holdren call for his crony style of capitalism in the space program because he understands NASA is tantamount to the US military, and wants to see it cut down. Until there is a private market for human spaceflight, Newspace is no different than the US fighting its wars with mercenaries. We need to maintain that ‘Seal Team Six’ capability within NASA.
I think that whatever can unit people for a common good, in this case the science, it should be attempted. If a Mars flight, based on a sustainable and repeatable hardware framework, can unite people around the world then lets go for it. A 20 man lunar base would probably do the same. With 3 craft able to reach the Moon, I refer to Soyuz, Orion and Chinas entry, a Lunar base would probably, be the way to go. However if Mars is a better target to get a cooperative ball rolling, then good too! Its better to have their rockets aimed at Mars, then at us!
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
So? Shuttle was grounded for similar periods. 2 1/2 years is a blink of time in the history of China. They have a plan. And the Chinese move at a different pace than Western societies, which tend to be much more quicksodic and reactive. When they walk on the moon, they won’t walk away from it, like Americans did.
@Ellegood wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 9:32 am
They are. There is no long term benefit to the United States in it, other than China will have the money to fund such ventures. Their ‘civil’ space program is a propaganda tool, no more, no less. And any ‘space cooporation’ would simply be another opened avenue of technology transfer. They’re communists, and the dumbed down citizenry from the Reagan era, now of age, in the USA always seems to forget the Red credo of taking one step back to take two steps forward and having capitalists sell them the very rope by which they will be hanged- which is precisely what China is slowly and methodically doing.
First of all, the US space program doesn’t cost very much, comprising less than 0.6% of our annual Federal expenditures. Unfortunately, folks like Holdren continue to perpetuate the myth that NASA is a huge burden to the US economy when in fact Federal expenditures on space have actually created a lot more wealth than they have consumed. Even China recognizes this!
One of the reasons why China may eventually become a larger economy than the US is because we haven’t invested enough in money in our space program. NASA should have a budget of at least $25 billion a year instead of less than $20 billion a year. And private industry should be receiving at least $1 to $2 billion a year from the Federal government to help them develop their own private space programs and new space technologies.
And why would I want the US to cooperate with a fascist oligarchy like China that oppresses its own people and supports terrorist states like Iran? Holdren should be fired, IMO!
Well at least NASA can still work with ESA. What if ESA was working with China? Our congress has two dimensional thinking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13286238
“Not to be a stickler but isn’t China a constant threat on computer systems?”
I’m no expert in this area, but my understanding is that the cyber espionage originating in China against US government and contractor computer systems was episodic in nature — occuring every couple years (rather than constant) from 2003 to 2007. See “Titan Rain” on wikipedia.
And we don’t know if the infiltrations were directed by China’s government or an independent group (or groups) of nationalists and hackers located in China. See “Honker Union” on wikipedia.
(Of course, the guy at Sandia Labs who first detected the Titan Rain pattern of infiltration was fired for telling the FBI and subsequently sued Sandia for millions of dollars. Gotta love how we shoot ourselves in the foot. See “Shawn Carpenter” on wikipedia.)
In early 2009, there was another round of cyberespionage originating from China targeting embassies and foreign ministeries of governments around the world. But again, it’s unclear whether China’s government directed or sponsored this activity or whether it was carried out by an independent group of nationalists and hackers.
In late 2009/early 2010, computer firms and other industrial targets experienced cyberattacks originating from China that exploited weaknesses in IE and Google code which went beyond gathering data and into modifying source code. According to diplomatic cables and reporting in the Guardian, these attacks were instigated at the direction of a Politburo member who didn’t like internet articles about himself (go figure…) and carried out on mainly non-government systems. (See “Operation Aurora” on wikipedia.)
Based on the above, my 2-cent guess is that there is a significant and reasonably capable group of nationalist hackers that members of the Chinese government unofficially (and technically unlawfully according to their own regulations) tap from time to time to demonstrate basic, if large scale, cyberespionage and cyberwarfare capabilities. But they probably don’t have much of a standing, government capability in cyberespionage/warfare like the US or highly sophisticated hackers like whoever pulled off stuxnet. But again, I’m no expert — just speculating based on what’s in the public domain.
“Wouldn’t that have to be conditional on them keeping a more active human launch program?”
If Shenzhou is acting as a Soyuz backup (to be called up within 3-6 months only if needed) or is only going up to ISS once (or less) per year, probably no. If Shenzhou needs to go up two or more times a year, probably yes.
FWIW…
common sense wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
common sense wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 4th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
“not so muchâ€
I like your version and I am not sure that we disagree that much about fighter pilot. Choice of words maybe. Indeed always been managers of a weapon system. But the trend is not to have pilots engage in dogfight (granted always has been) but rather to eliminate the threat ASAP.
………………………………………………………………..
to put these two post together. My argument against cooping with the Chinese on a “big” space goal like going to Mars…is that Mars in itself is goofy.
Past that, the notion of cooperating on any serious goal in HSF is more biased toward the fact that if we do not somehow come to an agreement IN OUR COUNTRY about two things 1) how to deal on a level playing field with the Chinese (and other emerging “manufactoring economies”) and 2) come to some terms with how to start a MODERN US economy doing something that actually makes us an economy….we are in trouble…and I dont see any need to deal with the PRC until we do that.
Look, we have troubles in the US and not very good (now) political leadership or even a political base from which to develop good policies (although I see the some hints that this might be changing)…but the PRC has some issues as well, a lot of which are as difficult for them to solve as it is for us to solve.
Right now I frankly dont see any need for another project that requires “partnerships” and does nothing but prop up a failing US government space program…..which is what makes some of the GOP comments additionally surprising.
On the comments about airplanes and future systems…where this ties in is that one of the issues of modernizing OUR economy is to leave those out of the loop who cannot think outside the loop of history. And this includes space policy. Cernan et al, wind, Whittington are all advocating things that try and preserve a past that if it worked at all…no longer does.
Robert G. Oler
abreakingwind wrote:
President Obama and Holdren call for his crony style of capitalism in the space program
I see. When the administration proposes to competitively purchase services at a fixed price from a commercial provider, saving the taxpayers millions, it’s crony capitalism, but when the head of exploration at NASA provides a sole-source no-bid contract to the company that he just came through the revolving door from, it’s good old American Free Enterprise?
It’s almost like you’re a parody of yourself, your comments are so over-the-top ridiculous.
the Chinese move at a different pace than Western societies, which tend to be much more quicksodic and reactive. When they walk on the moon, they won’t walk away from it, like Americans did.
Why not? They walked away from Africa and the Americas, after discovering them in the fifteenth century, because it got to be too expensive for them, and the only reason they did it was for national prestige. The way they’re doing space, the same will happen with the moon, if and when they ever get there.
We won’t need Shenzhou as a backup to Soyuz because we’ll have lots of domestic commercial options by 2014 — unless Congress does something massively stupid like forbid NASA from using commercial craft.
I think Congress is capable of massive stupidity. They just haven’t gone that far yet.
China has yet to demonstrated any capability of ISS rendezvous. If SpaceX has to prove it, so does China.
I think any discussion we have with China is about their abandoning their own plans for a space station to join the ISS partnership. The language cited by Jeff in the CR refers to a “bilateral” relationship of some sort. But the ISS is a consortium. If China reaches an agreement with the consortium, it doesn’t violate federal law, does it?
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I think again you are giving way too much importance to a cooperation with China on a trip to Mars. I see it as a symbol. Nobody can afford it. So far anyway.
I think that in order to decrease a perceived threat the better way to go is to collaborate one way or another. There is no turning back the clock and the manufacturing jobs that were lost are lost forever. Or maybe until the day China and other countries workers decide they need OSHA, healthcare, retirement and other such benefits.
Our leaderhsip in technology and science stemmed from our immigration policy, believe it or not. The US used to attract top talent, not so any more. And we will pay the price for it.
Look at SpaceX as an example in terms of idiotic conservatism. Look how much trouble they are facing from our political class. Maybe someday when they get tired of all this nonsense they will incorporate in Shangai! Talk about low cost launchers then!
Right now the economy by our own doing is in China’s hands. We need to deal with it. But how??? You cannot impose tariff, it won’t work, the people used to cheap goods (i.e. every one) will be up in arms. You cannot keep them from buying out our industry since Wall Street decided to sell off our industries abroad in order to maximize the profit of a few. So what do we do? Invade Monaco? We’re good at that it seems to me. Or maybe we can build another aircraft carier or nuke sub. Let’s see how long we can go like this.
Here is again where we can lead, really lead: Medicine, Bioindustry, Hospitals, Clean Energy. Everything that is difficult today. Not that was difficult in 1969! But the world is not waiting for us to take our head out of our a$$. China is investing like crazy in clean energy for example. And while some would love to see an arms race to the Moon with China the real arms race is that of clean and reusable energy. Because when it is too expensive to run our economy on oil we will have to contemplate our base on the Moon and sigh with yet another drink.
It is not about China!!! It is all about the USA and the USA lost its direction with the morons in charge now and the past decades. And if one WH understands that and try to steer away from stupidity our friendly Congress is prompt to steer back towards stupidity. Talk about inspiration! Pathetic.
Thanks for the post MT.
Windy wrote:
“President Obama and Holdren call for his crony style of capitalism in the space program because he understands NASA is tantamount to the US military, and wants to see it cut down.”
Ya you’re right, I don’t know how NASA manages on only a 2 billion dollar budget and the Military getting only 200 billion, that gosh darn socialist always cutting the Military and it’s proxy NASA.
Oh wait, President Obama DIDN’T cut the military or NASA when he came in, he actually increased their budgets.
Does reality EVER enter your thinking before you post?
So NASA, with a 18 billion dollar budget and only half going to human spaceflight is tantamount to the military industrial complex with an almost 800 billion dollar a year budget?
Explain to me how a program that is run on a fixed rate, competitively bid and they only get paid when they complete a milestone is “crony capitalism” and Orin Hatch, Shelby et cetera, pushing for noncompetitive, cost plus contracts with built in escalator clauses for lockheed and boeing isn’t?
You can’t have it both ways. If the pennies on the dollar that commercial space receives, relative to old school NASA contractors recieve, and the results they get is bad .. EVERYTHING that NASA does on cost plus to the usual suspects also has to be bad.
“We won’t need Shenzhou as a backup to Soyuz because we’ll have lots of domestic commercial options by 2014″
I meant now. Now that we’re forced into least a few years of single-string crew access to ISS — thanks to Griffin terminating CEV, refusing to fund commercial crew, and subsequent Constellation schedule slippage — it sure would be nice to have a Shenzhou backup or competitor to Soyuz.
“I think any discussion we have with China is about their abandoning their own plans for a space station to join the ISS partnership. The language cited by Jeff in the CR refers to a “bilateral†relationship of some sort. But the ISS is a consortium. If China reaches an agreement with the consortium, it doesn’t violate federal law, does it?
The term you’re looking for is “multilateral”. The ISS Partnership is a multilateral agreement. Since Wolf’s language appears to only prohibit spending towards “bilateral” agreements between the U.S. and China, it seems that NASA could still contribute towards ISS Partnership efforts to bring China into that multilateral agreement. (I’m not aware of any ongoing such efforts, but if there were in the future…)
No idea if this was an intentional oversight or not by Wolf or his clerk. And regardless, as Holdren pointed out and Wolf agreed, the Constitution gives the Executive Branch the authority to negotiate internationally, regardless of appropriations to support those negotiations. And unless it’s a treaty-level agreement, the White House wouldn’t have to obtain Senate ratification, anyway.
FWIW…
@DCSCA – That’s a pretty scary (even xenophobic) view, and I think it is dead wrong. Sure, I believe China wants to develop a space-based military capability…there are hawks in both countries. Who could blame them, as they watch the U.S. develop similar strategic capabilities.
Their hawks think we’re a threat, just like ours think they are. It gets us nowhere, unless you’re a defense contractor. Also, they’re far from Communists (except in party name), and these days they often seem more Capitalist and pragmatic than we are. You suggest that they have this evil methodical plan against us, but with what end-game? It is in our mutual best interest to have a healthy, peaceful, and collaborative relationship with China.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
“…when in fact Federal expenditures on space have actually created a lot more wealth than they have consumed.”
Where do you get this “fact” from?
Other than the theory that government spending stimulating the economy, the same could be said of virtually every government agency and department. What you have failed to show is why NASA is “special” or better.
“Holdren is not a space policy maker.”
This White House has had a national space policy for nearly a year now.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf
By definition, the President’s science advisor has become a “space policy maker”
Don’t be so idiotic.
“When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, Holdren was burning flags at Harvard.”
Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in 1969. Holdren didn’t earn his PhD at Stanford until 1970 and didn’t join the Harvard faculty until sometime after that.
Stop being so idiotic.
“America won’t be surpassed by China is we abandon his socialist agenda now… Holdren call for his crony style of capitalism in the space program”
This is precious.
So which is it?
Is Holdren pursuing a “socialist agenda” at NASA?
Or is he establishing “crony… capitalism” at NASA?
You do understand that socialism and capitalism are not the same thing, right?
You’d have to be an idiot to make both claims in the same argument.
“return to being the high growth, high opportunity country…”
And NASA’s human space flight program has contributed to that how, exactly?
We’ve spent something in the neighborhood of a half trillion dollars on the civil human space flight program to date. What “high growth, high opportunity” potentials has that massive taxpayer investment uncovered? Setting aside COTS and CCDev, where is all the private investment rushing into these wondrous opportunities?
“Until there is a private market for human spaceflight, Newspace is no different than the US fighting its wars with mercenaries.”
Except that national defense and the raising of militia are written into the Constitution while space (or any other type of) exploration/explorers are not.
Duh…
“We need to maintain that ‘Seal Team Six’ capability within NASA.”
This is goofy.
Not to denigrate the hard work of the Shuttle workforce, but the 1970s technology, the multi-ten thousand-person teams, and the multi-week to multi-month delays involved in Shuttle missions bear no resemblance whatsoever to Special Forces teams or their operations.
bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13244053
Sigh…
@Major Tom
“And China, for all its one-party rule, is not a dictatorship.”
Yeah right. Come out and denounce the ruling oligarchy (the Communist Party) and see where you end up in China. Don’t let your admiration for Chinese financial success fool you into thinking that China is anything close to a free country. Of course, many in America also admired the financial success of the New Germany back in the early 1930s.
@Rand Simberg
“Why not? They walked away from Africa and the Americas, after discovering them in the fifteenth century, because it got to be too expensive for them, and the only reason they did it was for national prestige. The way they’re doing space, the same will happen with the moon, if and when they ever get there.”
Are you joking? China has invested in so many African natural resources that they practically own Africa right now! And now they’re in South America.
The ruling oligarchy in China believes that in the long run, America can be bought since they believe that the US is ruled by the corporations. Of course, some of us believe that America is still ruled by the people. We’ll see whose right!
“It’s not know if the Shenzhou docking systems is compatible with the Russian docking ports on the ISS.”
Shenzhou 8, to launch later this year, will perform an unmanned docking using an androgynous Russian adaptor:
sinodefence.com/space/project/shenzhou8.asp
And it’s been known since at least 2004 that the adaptor in question is the APAS-89, which supports ISS and Shuttle dockings:
“The mention of docking systems is especially illuminating. Although Russia and the U.S. have used different types of docking mechanisms over the years to link spacecraft in orbit, photographs of Shenzhou indicate that the Chinese have chosen a Russian variant called the APAS-89. The device consists of a pressurized tunnel 80 centimeters in diameter surrounded by sloping metal petals that allow any two units of the same design to latch together. Originally developed by a US-Soviet team in 1973-1975 for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and perfected for use by Buran space shuttles visiting the Russian Mir space station [which never happened, although one visiting Soyuz vehicle was equipped with the system], the APAS-89 is now used to dock NASA’s space shuttles to the International Space Station (ISS). Although China is primarily interested in docking its spacecraft with its own small space stations, the decision to employ the APAS-89 mechanism would allow Shenzhou to link with both the space shuttles and the ISS.”
spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12687
“How long would it would take to qualify the Shenzhou for docking to the ISS and would it be that much faster than Dragon or the Boeing craft?”
Given that both Dragon and Shenzhou are scheduled to perform their first dockings later this year, this is a moot question. The relevant question is which spacecraft can NASA qualify for crew transport first. Given that Shenzhou already has an LES but Dragon only just got funded for one, I’d put my money on Shenzhou (unless NASA was willing to forgo an LES, like it has for almost 30 years now on Shuttle).
“… I think adding Shenzhou would not add much capability.”
It’s not a question of capability (although Shenzhou is bigger than Soyuz).
It’s a question of having a backup to Soyuz if/when it experiences an accident or anomaly that forces the Soyuz program to standdown from flight for an extended period. If that happened, it could strand a crew at ISS with no way down (if the accident or anomaly involved reentry/landing, which has happened multiple times in the Soyuz program), or leave the ISS uncrewed for an extended period, which is risky for the ISS.
It’s also a question of providing competition for Soyuz to discourage price growth.
FWIW…
@DCSCA – That’s a pretty scary (even xenophobic) view, and I think it is dead wrong.
No surprise. Consider the source.
“Yeah right. Come out and denounce the ruling oligarchy (the Communist Party) and see where you end up in China.”
That’s not the definition of a dictatorship. By your own statement, China’s government is an oligarchy, not a dictatorship.
Don’t be so idiotic. Think before you post.
“Don’t let your admiration for Chinese financial success…”
Where did I say that I have “admiration” for anything about China?
China’s economy is built on exploiting cheap, uneducated, poor labor, and they leave their old, crippled, orphaned, and mentally challenged to fend for themselves. Their launch industry alone has injured dozens of innocent villagers in failed launches. Moreover, I’ve been to Beijing and been repeatedly panhandled by dozens of the most desperate individuals I’ve encountered in my entire life, all within blocks of the Forbidden City. I personally find nothing “admirable” about China’s economy. That doesn’t mean that China has nothing to offer in joint civil space efforts or that partnering with China in space couldn’t provide useful leverage on other issues.
If you can’t engage in a discussion without putting words in the other poster’s mouth, then you shouldn’t bother posting — you’re just lying about other posters have written in black and white and wasting their time.
“fool you into thinking that China is anything close to a free country.”
Where did I say that China is a “free country”?
Again, if you can’t engage in a discussion without putting words in the other poster’s mouth, then you shouldn’t bother posting — you’re just lying about other posters have written in black and white and wasting their time.
Ugh…
@Ellegood wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Except it’s not. The PRC remains a communist dictatorship. It has not changed. And the ‘one step back to take two steps forward’ lesson is going to be re-learned the hard way in time. “…they’re far from Communists (except in party name).” You are dreaming. A decade ago China detained a technology-filled U.S. spy plane and crew. Fears were voiced within hours of daylight that the wreckage from the ‘stealth’ Blackhawk, trucked out of Bin Laden’s compound, was headed for Pakistan’s pals… China. “It is in our mutual best interest to have a healthy, peaceful, and collaborative relationship with China.” No, it is in their best interest, not ours
@Rand Simberg wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
‘Consider the source.’ Yes, and he’s a good one. What’s your excuse.
@Major Tom
Give me a break! The US has a titanic technological lead over China as far as space technology is concerned. There is no logical reason for us to cooperate with them in any space venture unless we intend to turn over even more of our advanced technology over to them– which is what they want. And Holdren’s idea that we somehow need Chinese money in the future in order to expand our manned space program to Mars is ludicrous.
Sorry! I’ve only been to the free side of China, Taiwan, and refuse to travel to the Chinese mainland even though my in-laws who are of mainland Chinese ancestry have. I’ll only travel to China when China is free!
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pmPlus their human space program is not moving “all that quicklyâ€.
What makes you think China has any desire to pace itself to western scales. It never has before. They have a methodical plan and will follow it.
“Killing our number 1 enemy did more to “impress†our friends and foes alike then any effort at going to Mars or the Moon.” You don’t know what you’re talking about. Slaughtering foes has been a human hobby since man crawled out of the slime. The lunar landing was a benchmark in the evolution of life on this Earth, in that a species native to same showed it was capable of leaving. Unless, of course, giraffes have a space program.
@ DCSCA wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
The DoD has never flown anybody to orbit and never will. The clock is ticking. Tick Tock Tick Tock. The voters are waiting.
“Is Holdren pursuing a “socialist agenda†at NASA?
Or is he establishing “crony… capitalism†at NASA?”
Ah ah! Here goes:
He is establishing a chinese communist party capitalist space program. So it is socialist is as much as hmm let’s see hmm he works for the most socialist of them all, President Obama. It is capitalist because one only wealthy investor, wink wink Elon, is cashing in on it. The other people do not count. Boeing for example is a company that has the right stuff, afterall they bought Rockwell and Rockwell built Apollo! Let’s see. Does that work? Well. Not yet. Elon is a good friend of the President’s. The President was not born in the US. Sorry but Hawaii was not a US colony I mean state until very recently. So they do not count. They used to have a king over there did not they? Okay some were elected king. It is really getting complicated now. Especially if you consider the President’s youth in Indonesia. Nah, not socialist either. And where is the link with China? I think that the President ought to show us is really real birth certificate. Not a real fake which is easy to do once you have good friends at the CIA, the Chinese Industrial Agency of course. Not to be confused with the intelligence services. Speaking of which it’d be great if they were to spread a little intelligence on some space blogs from time to time.
Anywho. We will not let our brave NASA civil (some are not that civil if you ask me but it’s a different problem) servants fall into the hands of the wealthy pro China crony capitalist! And this is a fact.
In terms of labeling China I tend to call it an authoritarian autocracy. I leave the oligarchy term to label what the US is becoming since I see the largest corporations writing themselves loopholes so they don’t have to pay taxes, getting handouts from the Supreme Court so they aren’t liable to the American people to pay for damage incurred. I’ve been to China three times, and yes there are lot of people on the street, some with hideous burns that have melted half of their bodies, begging for whatever they can get, but its no different than walking around an America city where I experience very aggressive pan handling. China just has more people and less wealth, which lowers their measure of the value of life.
Regardless of how much we cooperate with China on space, such as allowing the Shenzhou to dock with the ISS I don’t think China is quite willing, yet, to consider dropping the zero-sum game it is playing with the United States. Its economic competition with the US has a lot more to do with strategic power, than attaining wealth. Whatever friendly hand we extend to China won’t guarantee that we will avoid a very frightening showdown in the Pacific in the years to come. The US had better get a lot smarter than it is now by investing a lot more funds in science and technology. Those who try to save a buck by lowering our investment in technology are paying a serious detriment to the country. And I would also warn the wealthy of the US to stop selling out their enterprises to the Chinese. Cirrus for example is being targeted for acquisition by AVIC, a Chinese state owned company that wants to compete in the aircraft industry. All this is very targeted and organized. Americans don’t realize the seriousness of the game that is being played my friends. Americans don’t exhibit the feverish nationalism of the Chinese – they just don’t get it.
This morning, Im reading that a commercial lunar flight, with Russian hardware is in the works for around 2015. Now this definately could open up space. Soyuz was originally intended for lunar missions, and I wondered why the Russians never went for it. It would boost everyones spirits to see a lunar mission again. The article says the commercial company offering the flight is also investing in the modifications to Soyuz, and the added kicker stage. How many will make the trip after the initial flight remains to be seen, but apparently there will be alot of money exchanging hands.
“The US has a titanic technological lead over China as far as space technology is concerned. There is no logical reason for us to cooperate with them”
It’s not about technology. It’s about capability. They have an operational human ETO capability and we won’t for at least a few years after the last two Shuttle flights.
“And Holdren’s idea that we somehow need Chinese money in the future in order to expand our manned space program to Mars is ludicrous.”
We don’t have a “manned space program to Mars”.
Sigh…
MT…….
“Given that both Dragon and Shenzhou are scheduled to perform their first dockings later this year, this is a moot question.â€
Apples and oranges here…
Dragon will be flying to a rendezvous with the ISS to be captured by the station robotic arm and then attached via a common berthing adapter. Shenzhou will be flying to what I believe will be an automated docking to a module of their own design.
My real point is that each craft will have it’s own hoops to jump through whether technical, political, (I would think the Russians try to protect their monopoly as long as they can) and bureaucratic.
While you have valid points, it would be in our best interests to speed development of Dragon, Boeing or even a striped down version of Orion rather than push through Shenzhou certification for docking to the ISS.
If ISS is truly an INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION, what does that imply? All that can reach it, should have a birthing area. We adapted to the Soviet style of docking port, so too could China or anyone else. If a country is not allowed aboard, then it is not International as claimed. As long as science is what is done aboard, all should be welcomed. Just maybe we could learn to get along!
That depends entirely on how we define our best interests
@ Ferris Valyn wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
“While you have valid points, it would be in our best interests to speed development of Dragon, Boeing or even a striped down version of Orion rather than push through Shenzhou certification for docking to the ISS.
That depends entirely on how we define our best interests”
Orion is too expensive even a stripped down version. Speeding up Dragon or CST-100 (or even Orion if ever possible which I highly doubt for the reasons below) may be possible but I suspect by no more than a year.
It is not about injecting cash only into a company that will speed up things. See, Congress has injected cash into Constellation every year for a year to year delay. It is about the team you have, the org structure you have, the not-cutting-the-corners thing, etc. Difficult to really speed up now.
Had they really wanted to speed up things they could have at the very least:
1. Decided a budget, even a CR, last year or earlier this year.
2. Provided COTS-D options to the COTS companies.
They haven’t. They don’t care. They won’t do it.
@ Dennis Berube wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 11:59 am
“Just maybe we could learn to get along!”
Believe me on that one. We do get along. Only morons don’t get it. Ask Boeing if they enjoy selling their aircraft to China, or not. Dig a little deeper and you’ll see we actually do get along pretty well.
@common sense wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 12:13 am
Hmmm. Suggest you check the shuttle manifest listings over the past three decades and you’ll discover many, as NASA says, ‘totally dedicated to DoD’ missions (complete w/media blackouts on payloads as well as lauinch/landing times). And, of course, shuttle has been crewed by DoD pedigreed personnel since it began flying and the design of the orbiter was forced to incorporated specs from DoD as well to meet their planned usage at the time and secure DoD funding; they constructed a shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg as well. But you go on believing otherwise. And, of course, decades ago DoD/DoD personnel flew ‘into space’- or at least above 50 miles earning their pilots ‘astronaut wings’ per USAF criteria on DoD/X-15 flights as well as flights via NACA/NASA. But if you are cranking that no DoD missile/rocket/launch system has orbited a DoD crew on a DoD spacecraft and returned same safely that is publicly known/acknowledged, sure, we’ll give you that– but then, if it has occurred- it may be classified or a black ops success and you’ll never know about– which was the plan for the cancelled MOL crews. And, of course, the thread derivatives of Project Mercury descend directly from 1956 USAF planning; the ‘Original Seven’ were all military test pilots and, of course, the Mercury spacecraft were launched on military-derived missiles- the Redstone and the Atlas. The ‘civilian’ HSF launch system of that era can be credited to Von Braun’s Saturn series. But it’s silly to pretend DoD has had little or nothing to do with America’s ‘civilian’ space program.
“Apples and oranges here…”
The point was not that each spacecraft’s rendezvous and docking method is different. (They’re driven largely by the capabilities of their targets — ISS has a robotic arm and can do safer standoff berthings while Tiangong does not.) The point was that both capsules plan to test their rendezvous and docking systems and operations later this year. So there’s nothing to accelerate from the rendezvous and docking perspective. In terms of ISS crew transport, the long pole in the tent is the Dragon LES, not the rendezvous and docking systems on either Dragon or Shenzhou.
“Shenzhou will be flying to what I believe will be an automated docking to a module of their own design.”
There’s nothing to “believe”. Shenzhou 8 will be an unmanned mission. The docking will be telerobotic/automated. See links in my earlier post.
“While you have valid points, it would be in our best interests to speed development of Dragon, Boeing or even a striped down version of Orion rather than push through Shenzhou certification for docking to the ISS.”
All things being equal, I’m not arguing that we should prefer Shenzhou over Dragon, ST-100, etc. Of course we should give preference to domestic solutions and buy American.
I’m just pointing out the reality that all things are not equal. Thanks to Griffin and Constellation, our earliest domestic ISS crew transport option (crewed Dragon) won’t be complete and through testing until 2014. But a Shenzhou capable of carrying crew and docking with ISS will be complete and through testing in 2011. Unless we take advantage of Shenzhou, we’ve got a three-year period where ISS will be solely dependent on Soyuz after Shuttle retirement in 2011. Every spacecraft has problems at one point or another, and if Soyuz has an exceptionally bad problem during those three years, ISS is up a creek without a paddle. It would be good to have a spare paddle in Shenzhou.
It would also be good to have Shenzhou in the mix to put pressure on the Russians during negotiations on Soyuz pricing. I imagine China would gladly provide a hot Shenzhou backup or routine Shenzhou flights in exchange for the privelege of joining the ISS partnership and not having to spend limited resources on their own Tiangong space station.
“My real point is that each craft will have it’s own hoops to jump through whether technical, political, (I would think the Russians try to protect their monopoly as long as they can) and bureaucratic.”
I addressed the technical above. It’s not an ideal situation, but Shenzhou is farther along technically than the domestic alternatives by at least several years.
In terms of bureaucracy, the key is getting these vehicles “human rated” for NASA astronauts by NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA). OSMA can do this quickly if sufficiently motivated, and has done so twice in the case of Soyuz, once for Apollo-Soyuz and again for the Mir flights leading up to the ISS. You can read about OSMA’s approach to approving Soyuz for NASA astronauts here:
ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/SP-2010-578.pdf
In the case of foreign and commercial vehicles, OSMA relies on a “trust but verify” approach that, in turn, relies heavily on the vehicle’s mission record. Shenzhou already has an unblemished record of seven successful missions, so this shouldn’t be an issue unless China is unable to open its Shenzhou program to OSMA representatives.
(Dragon, by comparison, has two flights to date and will still be missing an LES after this year’s rendezvous and docking with ISS. For better or worse, OSMA is highly unlikely to approve Dragon for NASA crew transport until there’s an LES — scheduled for 2014 — and more of a mission record.)
The only real showstopper for Shenzhou is politics. Given the situation that the ISS is going to be in for crew transport for at least the next three years and given that we want to have leverage with China, I personally think it would be stupid to hold up our noses and not to pursue the Shenzhou option. You can’t have much benefits from or influence in foreign relations unless you actually have relations.
FWIW…
@ DCSCA wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
“but then, if it has occurred- it may be classified or a black ops success and you’ll never know about–”
And you would know and be allowed to tell because… What do you know I know? Tell me I am curious. For all you know I may be posting from area 51 or from the ISS…
MOL was cancelled because it did not work by the way. As usual your reference is 40 to 60 years back on failed programs.
DoD never ever send a crew to orbit. Tick-Tock. Acute observers are waiting…
“Suggest you check the shuttle manifest listings over the past three decades and you’ll discover many, as NASA says, ‘totally dedicated to DoD’ missions (complete w/media blackouts on payloads as well as lauinch/landing times).”
Not much since the 1980s.
FWIW…
@ Major Tom wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Are you talking reason? Come on, stop it. There is no rational thinking in all this.
“or better or worse, OSMA is highly unlikely to approve Dragon for NASA crew transport until there’s an LES — scheduled for 2014 — and more of a mission record.)”
They might allow a reentry only safety boat, wouldn’t they?
common sense wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
In fact, MOL was cancelled due to budgets, costs and redundancy- as spysats provided the same data for less $.
@ Major Tom wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
His notion of DoD missions relates to the fact that the astronauts corps includes DoD personnel. They also include CIA people, why don’t we put it under the wing of the Central Intelligence? It also has MDs and we could put NASA under the wing of the World Health Organization, right? At least these two ought to have a larger budget than NASA…
I wonder if they had a veterinary doctor, can’t remember for sure. We could put NASA under the wing of the Humane Society.
@ DCSCA wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
“In fact, MOL was cancelled due to budgets, costs and redundancy- as spysats provided the same data for less $.”
It is called a failure. Can you understand why it was a failure? Do you actually understand what you write?
Tick-Tock
DCSCA wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pmPlus their human space program is not moving “all that quicklyâ€.
you replied:
What makes you think China has any desire to pace itself to western scales. It never has before. They have a methodical plan and will follow it. …………………
no doubt, that is quite obvious, but just because it (whatever “it” is…ie an adaption of a Soviet Aircraft carrier to Chinese Navy requirements…or a Spacecraft) does not imply that it is a threat to the US…or even something to be used or having ANY VALUE outside the chinese system of government
Robert G. Oler
“They have money, we don’t.”
Even if that’s true, what makes you think they’ll part with as much of it as you think is appropriate?
They have long term space aspirations backed by commitments from their government. We don’t.”
Even if that’s true, what makes you think that the US has any role in those aspirations?
@ Dennis Berbe:
“If a Mars flight, based on a sustainable and repeatable hardware framework…”
That is indeed the way to go to Mars, but…
“…can unite people around the world then lets go for it. A 20 man lunar base would probably do the same.”
I do not believe it would ‘unite’ (whatever that really means) those not already predisposed to unity. Has ISS changed anything down here, in that sense?
“If ISS is truly an INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION, what does that imply? All that can reach it, should have a birthing area.”
“International’ does not, by definition or implication mean *every* nation. There’s an ‘International’ airport in my city, but the only regularly scheduled foreign flights are to Canada…
“As long as science is what is done aboard, all should be welcomed. Just maybe we could learn to get along!”
Just having a few guys from different places in the same laboratory doesn’t guarantee that. *They* may well get along…that’s all.
I’m afraid I don’t recall its name, but I well remember a passage from one of many NASA studies in the 70’s as to what we may do next that said; “The political situation in space will reflect the political situation on Earth. Not the other way around.”
@ Major Tom:
“I imagine China would gladly provide a hot Shenzhou backup or routine Shenzhou flights in exchange for the privilege of joining the ISS partnership and not having to spend limited resources on their own Tiangong space station.”
Your imagination, and what China wants, may not be the same thing. Mostly, a station of their own will allow them to do ‘spooky’ MOL-type ops that couldn’t happen on ISS. And it allows them to do less nefarious things of course, but still do them privately and quietly…
Not everyone is dying to get aboard ISS. (though several are dying to provide support for it…or anything else that comes along)
Bigelow Aerospace is built on the *assumption* that there are people who want to do things long-term in orbit, that for one reason or another can’t be done on ISS.
@common sense wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Hmmm… think you’ll find the Gemini spacecraft configured for MOL operations was successfully tested, launched and recovered. The program was terminated due to cost and a parellel redundency thanks to advances in spysat technology– at least in our universe. BTW, tick-tock, tick-tock… May 6, 2011 comes to a close…. and SpaceX has STILL NOT FLOWN ANBODY. Check tomorrow.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
‘It’ is their plan, posted/linked several times on this forum. They will follow it. And as the PRC is a competitor in an increasing number of arenas- the pose a threat and it is a national security interest to deny them access to opportunities for advance and keep them in check. Unless you embrace the policy of ‘selling them the very rope by which capitalist will be hanged.’
@DCSCA wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
“The program was terminated due to cost and a parellel redundency thanks to advances in spysat technology– at least in our universe.”
Yes and it is called a failure. A failure because it had no raison d’etre once satellite capabilities were vastly above it. It’s called failure even if financial…
“BTW, tick-tock, tick-tock… May 6, 2011 comes to a close…. and SpaceX has STILL NOT FLOWN ANBODY. Check tomorrow.”
Yep, May 6 and DoD has flown nobody, NIH has flown nobody, CIA has flown nobody, the Humane Society has flown nobody. Tick-Tock.
@ Frank Glover wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
“Your imagination, and what China wants, may not be the same thing. Mostly, a station of their own will allow them to do ‘spooky’ MOL-type ops that couldn’t happen on ISS. ”
Talk about imagination. MOL and its USSR counterpart were cancelled because they were too expensive in the face of satellites. BUT China will do that?
A little paranoia I see.
DCSCA wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
“‘It’ is their plan, posted/linked several times on this forum. They will follow it. And as the PRC is a competitor in an increasing number of arenas- the pose a threat and it is a national security interest to deny them access to opportunities for advance and keep them in check. Unless you embrace the policy of ‘selling them the very rope by which capitalist will be hanged.’”
If you are referring to either Chinese plans to build a modest space station over the next DECADE or some even more vague plans to do something whatever that is on the Moon…or even to take a decrepit Soviet era baby carrier and put it into service…
color me as not impressed or even mildly concerned.
In fact bored with the entire notion might be a better description.
If the Reds get a space station built then they will have the same problem that we have with “ours”; what on The Creators heavens to do with it?
Now if you are talking about the economic war that they are waging against the US…well there we have an issue…but that is not a war that has a thing to do with human spaceflight.
Robert G. Oler
Frank Glover wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
“Mostly, a station of their own will allow them to do ‘spooky’ MOL-type ops that couldn’t happen on ISS.”
and that would be “what”?
Robert G. Oler
Major Tom wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
you are one of the bright people on this forum and I read every post you write with interest.
There is however not a chance, not one on this earth or above it that the Chinese are going to be asked to be a backup to Soyuz…or that it would be available in 11 or will ever happen. The Russians just wont go there.
And its their docking ports.
Robert G. Oler
@ Marcel & DCSCA
China is an oligarchy, and it’s authoritarian. But it currently far from being a dictatorship. Mao was revered and had a lot of personal power, but these days the party chairman can’t do much without a consensus among the senior party officials.
@common sense wrote @ May 7th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
“[MOL and] its USSR counterpart were cancelled because they were too expensive in the face of satellites.” Hmmm. Except the Soviet ‘counterpart’ actually became operational, was orbited and manned several times before they ‘abandoned’ the project. You really are ‘lost in space,’ fella.
@ DCSCA wrote @ May 7th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
“Hmmm. Except the Soviet ‘counterpart’ actually became operational, was orbited and manned several times before they ‘abandoned’ the project. You really are ‘lost in space,’ fella.”
Oh yeah! Wow. Really? They also built Buran, y’know? They flew it uncrewed once. Wow! Even more advanced than our own Shuttle in many respects. And so what?
Lost in space? You wish buddy…
May 6 and DoD has flown nobody, NIH has flown nobody, CIA has flown nobody, the Humane Society has flown nobody. Tick-Tock.
Frank Glover wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
“Bigelow Aerospace is built on the *assumption* that there are people who want to do things long-term in orbit, that for one reason or another can’t be done on ISS.”
At this point it’s at least beyond an “assumption”, in that Bigelow Aerospace has signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) with seven sovereign nations – United Kingdom, Netherlands, Australia, Singapore, Japan, Sweden and the United Arab Emirate of Dubai. Short of writing checks, that’s clear intent.
For the U.K and Japan it may be a matter of expanding out from behind the shadow of the U.S., and the costs being talked about are well within their reach.
I would think that we would need at least two of those to actually use a Bigelow station before we get more countries plunking down real cash for their own stations (or portion of one), and two would probably be the minimum to demonstrate commercial crew and cargo services for them.
My guess would be if commercial crew is established by 2016, that we’ll have two or more of those countries using Bigelow stations by 2020.
My $0.02
@ Robert G. Oler
“Mostly, a station of their own will allow them to do ‘spooky’ MOL-type ops that couldn’t happen on ISS.â€
and that would be “what�
Well, would you be willing to bring your human-operated optical, infra-red, radio-frequency, whatever devices for defense and signal intelligence gathering purposes on a Chinese station for testing or active operational use? Would they even permit it?
I’m thinking no to both.
China would not consider the same on ISS, or be allowed, if they did.
@ common sense:
Talk about imagination. MOL and its USSR counterpart were cancelled because they were too expensive in the face of satellites. BUT China will do that?
A little paranoia I see.
China may have a different opinion of how practical that is, despite the US and Soviet experience. And nowhere is it written that this would be the *only* purpose of a Chinese station. (unlike MOL) If they operate it entirely alone, who can know just how ‘dual-use’ it may be?
Or was the security around those DoD Shuttle missions just for fun? Yet they were hardly the only purpose of the Space Transportation System, either. China will use such a space station asset for whatever reasons (plural) it sees fit, especially passive, non-weapon, but still military/intelligence-gathering roles.
Don’t confuse paranoia with simple acknowledgement of an adversarial relationship.
China is an economic competitor but neither the US nor China can afford to be adversaries. If we are wise, therefore, we will look for ways to build trust and cooperation, not because it would benefit China, but because it would benefit us. Unless Bigelow can buy and finance the whole thing the ISS needs a new partner that can provide an infusion of cash and a geopolitical rationale.
@Frank Glover wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
“China may have a different opinion of how practical that is, despite the US and Soviet experience. And nowhere is it written that this would be the *only* purpose of a Chinese station. (unlike MOL) If they operate it entirely alone, who can know just how ‘dual-use’ it may be?”
What the heck are you talking about? Can you be a little more precise? Give us some example rather than insinuating all this nonsense. Why would they build a space station and use it as an espionage platform when satellites are much better suited, less expensive and easier to replace???? WHY?
“Or was the security around those DoD Shuttle missions just for fun?”
They were stopped sometime around 1992 BECAUSE it did not make any sense. There was no reason to have classified mission with the Shuttle. EELVs were better at that and Shuttle would NEVER recover any USSR satellite once it become clear they may well just trapped with explosives! Do you know that?
“Yet they were hardly the only purpose of the Space Transportation System, either. China will use such a space station asset for whatever reasons (plural) it sees fit, especially passive, non-weapon, but still military/intelligence-gathering roles.”
Stop the meds, I mean really. Do you think that even if they were to do what you suggest we, the US, do not have any countermeasures???? Really???
“Don’t confuse paranoia with simple acknowledgement of an adversarial relationship.”
You are the one seeing an adversarial relationship. And along with those who believe that commercial crew should not be you will be left at the station when the train leaves. Actually. You’ve already missed the train. China does not need a space station to wage a “war” since it is the word you like. The simple buyout of our friendly Wall Street is plenty enough to strangle our economy if they see it fit. You may want to remember what happened a few years back in the middle of the Wall Street debacle when China was reevaluating their investments in the US. A nice sell off of their stocks would do a lot more damage. Try and remember that Bin Laden put the US to theirs knees with box cutters and airliners. Why would any one build a space station?!?!?!
“There is however not a chance, not one on this earth or above it that the Chinese are going to be asked to be a backup to Soyuz…or that it would be available in 11 or will ever happen. The Russians just wont go there.”
It’s certainly not in the interest of the Russians to bring China into the partnership. But the Russians won’t have much of a leg to stand on if all the other partners want a Soyuz backup, and Shenzhou is just a backup that doesn’t affect the number of Soyuz missions NASA purchases. And even if we try to replace some Soyuz flights with Shenzhou flights, it’s ultimately up to NASA how it fulfills its obligations under the ISS partnership. Russian can protest, but NASA holds the purse strings and determines whether it uses purchased Soyuzes or contributed Shenzhous to fulfill its crew transport and crew rescue obligations.
My 2 cents, FWIW…
@ cmmon sense
“What the heck are you talking about? Can you be a little more precise? ”
Sorry, China doesn’t make me privy to its precise intentions.
However, I *did* explicitly say that this need not be its only purpose. Why do you find it so difficult to entertain the the thought that they may use a station they seem determined to launch for other reasons anyway, and may have no non-Chinese occupants to independently verify to the rest of the world what is or is not happening there, for purposes that have a military connection for *some part* of the time, in *some part* of its volume, even if only as a testbed for devices to be part of unmanned systems later?
“They were stopped sometime around 1992 BECAUSE it did not make any sense.”
No economic sense, no. The Shuttle’s too expensive to operate. The DoD got that message pretty quickly. It’s not the direct presence of humans that doesn’t ‘make sense,’ it’s the particular hardware used to get them up there and back.
“There was no reason to have classified mission with the Shuttle.”
And yet, they did. Without first asking if you (or I) thought there was a reason. As I said, China may have a different opinion. Or, if there’s a lesson to be learned here, they may have to learn it the hard way for themselves, and you may be somewhat vindicated in the end. We will see.
“…and Shuttle would NEVER recover any USSR satellite once it become clear they may well just trapped with explosives! Do you know that?”
Actually, yes. I do. Now scroll back up there, and please show me where I said anything about satellite recovery? (or, for that matter, intercept) I spoke of space based sensors for intelligence gathering. NOTHING more.
“Stop the meds, I mean really. Do you think that even if they were to do what you suggest we, the US, do not have any countermeasures???? Really???”
Countermeasures against what? We seem not to be discussing the same things. If we can conceal what we need to, from a manned satellite conducting any kind of observations, then it seems the value of their (and anyone elses’) unmanned reconsats has been negated as well, and there’s nothing to worry about at all. Is that what you’re suggesting?
“You are the one seeing an adversarial relationship.”
And history tends to support me.
“And along with those who believe that commercial crew should not be you will be left at the station ”
Did I voice a lack of support for Commercial Crew? You won’t find that, because I’m completely in favor of it. Please don’t lump me in with that viewpoint.
“China does not need a space station to wage a “war†since it is the word you like. ”
And yet ‘war’ was not a word I used. Quote me, if you can. Also note that I very deliberately chose the word ‘adversarial,’ not ‘enemy.’ Some would be less generous, but I’m not quite prepared to say that.
‘Meds,’ indeed.
And be advised that the United States is not the only nation they would wish to observe, manned or otherwise. Not all others are in the same economic position with respect to China that the US is, and are less vulnerable to economic coercion.
It’s not all about the US.
“Try and remember that Bin Laden put the US to theirs knees with box cutters and airliners”
So, why does China have a very respectable military, if such methods are adequate for them?
“Why would any one build a space station?!?!?!”
Like Bigelow?
I don’t make China’s policy decisions, either. That question is best directed to the government of China. You’re welcome to wait until such a station materializes, but do be sure to ask them what they built it for, at such time.
@ Frank Glover wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
You know what you are saying is just that you don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t know about China and its intention but you surmise they will build a space station to be used as an espionage platform.
I know that when something does not make sense because it is not viable that it is very likely no one would do it either. Such as MOL.
“You’re welcome to wait until such a station materializes, but do be sure to ask them what they built it for, at such time.”
And they would answer me because…
Tortuous mind you seem to have…
“You don’t know about China and its intention but you surmise they will build a space station to be used as an espionage platform.”
My current opinion is that it will be *one* of its functions, yes. Presumably some basic science and other kinds of engineering development will be among the other functions. Those, BTW, are some of the reasons anyone builds *any* space station.
“And they would answer me because…”
It’s not at all likely that they would. That’s my point. You’re quite welcome to reject my opinion, but you may not get a complete, if any, answer from the actual source, either. Therefore, your conclusions are at least as speculative as mine.
@ Frank Glover wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 7:01 am
I think I’ll leave it at that but I assume you have proof that the ISS is used for espionage?
Frank Glover wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 7:01 am
“Therefore, your conclusions are at least as speculative as mine.”
No they’re not.
You’re making a positive claim without any evidence to back it up. The default position is to dismiss it until supporting evidence is presented.
@ Das Boese wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 10:02 am
“You’re making a positive claim without any evidence to back it up. ”
It feels difficult at times to deal with those who live in a different side of the reality… It leads to circle arguments with no end. I am done with Frank until he can back up any of his argument(s). Any.
The ISS is not even being used to take pictures of the Earth for scientific purposes, which was one of its original missions. Why can’t we at least get a few basic imaging systems mounted on the truss so new earth observation and environmental monitoring technology could be developed in a relatively low-cost environment?
China has already launched several seriies of recon satellites, there’s no particular reason to believe they would consider a manned vehicle to be needed for simply collecting photos. And they are certainly not interested in a moon race; if they lost they would look incompetent. If they won they would irritate their biggest customer.
So why is China in space? First, it provides a focus for national pride. China still remembers its cultural sense of inferiority and shame during the more than a century it was dominated by foreigners, first the European powers, then the Japanese. Human spaceflight shows Chinese they are a country of the first rank. Second, spaceflight showcases China’s industrial and commercial space capabilities for foreign customers. These goals just require an occasional flight to remind everyone they can do it. If China were in a race they would certainly be launching more than one manned flight a year.
China’s goal is not world hegemony but rather to “join the club” of world leaders that can ensure the global stability and growth its ecomony depends on. For that reason China would like to be invited to join the ISS program. Although purely symbolic, it would position China as one of a group of world leaders working in concert. From the US point of view, it would help diffuse tensions, not only between China and the US, but between China and Japan, China and India, China and Russia.
So I was astonished when Mike Griffin, participating in a conference in China, was invited to tour their launch facilities. According to press reports he asked if he would be allowed to see everything at the site, without restriction. When his hosts understandably demurred, he flatly refused the invitation, saying he had seen more than enough launch pads. For a senior US official to insult his hosts so flagrantly is an inexplicable as the torrent of attacks that have dogged his successor whenever he attempts to improve relations with a foreign power. I would have to consider both Mr. Griffin and Representative Wolf to be both shortsighted and narrow minded.
The world is far more likely to end in nuclear confrontation than in asteroidal impact. Paradoxically, even for the former NASA can help reduce the risk. It wants only the substitution of reason for xenophobia.
vulture4 wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 7:50 am
“…I would have to consider both Mr. Griffin and Representative Wolf to be both shortsighted and narrow minded. …”
DoD’s white paper on China points out they understand the need to deny the US access to it’s satellites in any conflict as they are key to almost all US military action world wide. China’s deliberate collision of two satellites in 2009 was a direct warning to the US that they could take out US military capability world wide very inexpensively. China is a paranoid superpower not interested in war per se, but will seize every advantage up to that point.
Neither Wolf nor Griffin are narrow minded on this issue.
@ sftommy wrote @ May 12th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
No, no. Wrong.
“China is a paranoid superpower not interested in war per se, but will seize every advantage up to that point.”
Do you know of any country that would not do any of what you say? Come on.
“think you’ll find the Gemini spacecraft configured for MOL operations was successfully tested, launched and recovered.”
Putting a hatch in the heatshield with no other mods does not qualify as “configured for MOL operations”
Learn something about spaceflight history for once.
“But if you are cranking that no DoD missile/rocket/launch system has orbited a DoD crew on a DoD spacecraft and returned”
Correct, the DOD has never performed a cradle to grave manned mission. It has always relied on NASA. Any DOD manned program was eventually put (and still is) under the protective wing of NASA HSF. And in the age of austerity, that is where it will remain.