White Paper – China's Space Activities in 2011
China Releases White Paper – China’s Space Activities in 2011, SpaceRef
Marc’s note: China’s Information Office of the State Council today published a white paper on China’s space activities in 2011. You can download a PDF of the white paper from the SpaceRef web site.
“Outer space is the common wealth of mankind. Exploration, development and utilization of outer space are an unremitting pursuit of mankind. Space activities around the world have been flourishing. Leading space-faring countries have formulated or modified their development strategies, plans and goals in this sphere. The position and role of space activities are becoming increasingly salient for each active country’s overall development strategy, and their influence on human civilization and social progress is increasing.”
No mention of a new race to the moon with the US. Sorry, Constellation fans, if you want to race to the moon you will be racing alone.
America already won the race to the Moon back in 1969. Now its time for America to win its water rights on the lunar surface.
I guess you missed the part in the Chinese White Paper that said, “
China will conduct studies on the preliminary plan for a human lunar landing.
“
To quote Ouyang Ziyuan (Ouyang), a senior consultant at China’s lunar exploration program:
“If China doesn’t explore the moon, we will have no say in international lunar exploration and can’t safeguard our proper rights and interests.”
Ouyang is an enthusiast, not a decisonmaker. Obviously if China were in a race they would be launching more than once a year. They are launching just often enough to stay in the news. They want to generate national pride and showcase their technology for trade purposes. To race the US would serve no purpose. If they lost they would look incompetent. If they won, they would irritate their biggest customer. Their preferred course (not named in the white paper for obvious reasons) would be to be invited to join the ISS program. But they are not going to beg, and if they are excluded they will establish their own station.
“They are launching just often enough to stay in the news”
dogstar3,
I wonder if that’s the case, or if it just works out that way. A year between launches seems like a reasonable time for them to build and prep whatever they are launching next, assuming that they haven’t been given infinite funding. No doubt, they could move faster, but then they’d be making more mistakes and losing face. Slow and steady wins the race (even if it isn’t one).
Steve
It depends on the goal. If the goal is to land on the moon before anyone else, then the optimal launch rate is considerably higher, as it was during Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. That isn’t the goal of the Chinese program, and it should not be our goal. The current Chinese launch rate is so low that it isn’t even optimum for retaining skills or developing operational experience, but it is adequate for a program that is constrained by funding but not by time. The Chinese goal is not to engage in a race. It is to demonstrate (primarily to the domestic audience) that China is one of the world’s leaders, and to showcase Chinese technical expertise to potential trading partners. I agree that China wants to avoid a the inevitable collapse in support faced by a time-driven single-goal-oriented program. This was the fate of Apollo and it would be the fate of Apollo on Steroids even if the funds were available, which they are not.
Developing human capabilities in space, and minimizing the risk of conflict between the superpowers is much more important than winning a purely symbolic race. If this is the goal of the US , then the optimal course is to invite China to join the ISS program and work collaboratively with them, as we already work with Russia, Europe, Japan, Canada and other countries.
The heck there isn’t, they are using (one of) our playbooks:
3. Human Spaceflight
China will push forward human spaceflight projects and make
new technological breakthroughs, creating a foundation for future human
spaceflight. It will launch the Shenzhou-9 and Shenzhou-10 spaceships and
achieve unmanned or manned rendezvous and docking with the in-orbit Tiangong-1
vehicle. China will launch space laboratories, manned spaceship and space
freighters; make breakthroughs in and master space station key technologies,
including astronauts’ medium-term stay, regenerative life technological
preparations for the construction of space stations. China will conduct studies
on the preliminary plan for a human lunar landing.
cut and past got garbled. Here is more:
China will launch space
laboratories, manned spaceship and space freighters; make breakthroughs in and
master space station key technologies, including astronauts’ medium-term stay,
regenerative life support and propellant refueling; conduct space applications
to a certain extent and make technological preparations for the construction of
space stations. China will conduct studies on the preliminary plan for a human
lunar landing
Oooh. Those are such amazing, fantastic, unbelievable things! Why the #$%^&* don’t we do that great, awesome stuff???
Oh yeah, we did.
Been there done that.
dogstar3:
The heck they aren’t, they are using (one of) our playbook(s):
3. Human Spaceflight
China will push forward human spaceflight projects and make
new technological breakthroughs, creating a foundation for future human
spaceflight. It will launch the Shenzhou-9 and Shenzhou-10 spaceships and
achieve unmanned or manned rendezvous and docking with the in-orbit Tiangong-1
vehicle. China will launch space laboratories, manned spaceship and space
freighters; make breakthroughs in and master space station key technologies,
including astronauts’ medium-term stay, regenerative life technological
preparations for the construction of space stations. China will conduct studies
on the preliminary plan for a human lunar landing.
They have ambition and a desire to own the future. What does America have?
A population, half of which don’t pay any fed income taxes and sponge off the over-taxed rest of us, thus have no skin in the game anyway.
If you confiscated the entire annual income of people in the bottom tax bracket, it would allow you to lower the top tax bracket by approximately 6 percentage points. To pay for that 3% tax cut in the top bracket, you needed to tax the bottom 50% a full half of their income. I don’t think people realise just how huge the distance between the top and bottom is today. You can’t get blood out of a stone.
When the US was at it’s peak (and US taxes were at their peak, and social structures were at their flattest,) a CEO in a corporation typically earned 50 times the wage of the average worker. Today, it’s about 300 times (and that’s not counting the work pushed off-shore which has lowered the “real” average wage.)
“thus have no skin in the game anyway.”
Those at the top don’t need public hospitals, public schools, public transport, can afford private security, buy access to elected officials at every level, and typically pay less tax than the people who work for them. I would suggest that they are the ones without “skin in the game”. And their actions show it.
The only group to benefit from government policy in the last ten years, ie, the only group to increase their wealth, is the top 0.1%. Hell, they have actually increased their wealth during the Great Recession. The 99 to 99.9th percentiles have stagnated in the last ten years. And incomes for the bottom 90% have flatlined since 1981, when Reagan started the great supply side experiment.
The Federal tax take as a proportion of GDP is at a 50 year low. And the top tax bracket hasn’t been this low since the 1920s. (Seriously, have a look at top tax bracket over the last 80 years.
http://www.taxfoundation.or…
.) Ditto cap gains, corporate tax rates, even the estate tax. So after all that, what has your country gotten out of it?
(I’m not an American and I know this stuff about your country, how can you not?)
Well said.
How can you know more than this poorly informed fellow?Simple- you get your news from more than one, (rather biased) place.Taxes are assessed on all of us from a variety of sources. Those that don’t currently pay Federal tax still pay various excise taxes, State and Local taxes, user fees, tolls, and indirect taxes (those “universal service charges” our Phone bills, etc)As for us falling behind the Chinese- I think that US based Space X’s cost structure is lower than anyone’s!- let’s have more of that please. And while we’re at it- Less Pork to Boeing, LockMart, ATK, etc.
In China income taxes are 45% on all income over $15K. Only the upper middle class and wealthy pay it. Their GDP growth is over 9% even with the rest of the world in recession. So it’s hard to claim that taxing the rich slows economic growth. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 left the US with the lowest taxes on the rich in over half a century, but in 2007 the economy collapsed, so cutting taxes for the rich does not help the US economy. In practice the US individuals and corporations take the money and invest it in China. Moreover, if you cut US taxes NASA’s budget will be further reduced and there will be less money for human spaceflight. I think you should stop complaining and pay your fair share.
> What does America have?
Congress
“This approach offers lessons for other advanced space powers, including
the U.S., which needs to make sure it sustains its high-level investment in various aspects of space development across the board,”
– Andrew S. Erickson, Professor, United States Naval War College
Staying power. Advocates for SLS please note this. And remember, we couldn’t afford to keep running Saturn V – which was 1/50th of SLS’s budget – end-to-end doing missions. Unlike the USSR, China isn’t focused on stunts, is a gradual player, and executes successive 5 year plans for decades.
They have economic growth to afford it too. Not a “services” economy.
I’m no expert, but….
Not focusing on stunts and being a gradual player is all very nice, but doesn’t a higher launch rate make your launcher more viable?
Roger:
Good question. I think that launch rate is the highest standard of measure possible. In fact, it’s the only standard that matters. Boeing 747s have a ‘launch rate’ of about every five minutes around the globe, a turn around time measured in hours and are reusable for tens of thousands of ‘missions’.
When we have a ‘flight rate’ to orbit that’s comparable… We’ll have won ourselves (all the folks on Earth) a reprieve we can measure in tens of thousands of years!
So… let’s get too it. I don’t care who pulls it off, just get the job done!
I would prefer that all the nations of the world get together and make colonizing space a mutual effort. It would go much quicker by diverting a small percentage of the no longer needed military budgets to ‘conquer’ space. The rest could be spent right here on Earth for useful things.
Blocking China out of the International Space Station is foolish, to say the least. They are the most populated country on the planet and have the advantage of not squabbling at the upper levels of power. China has the potential to out launch rate the rest of the world put together… if they want to.
What if they want to?
tinker
Roger,
A small point, but I would say that sustained, successful launch rate is the measure that determines viability. You can be on top of the heap one day and stuck in the mud the next day, as the current Soyuz LV problems illustrate. You’ve got to do it well and do it consistently first, then launch rate and launch cost become the key issues. That’s how I see it anyhow. I think it’s like playing a musical instrument — there’s no points for being fast if you can’t play the notes right, and play them right every time.
Steve
Steve:
A very good point. Safety and reliability should never go unsaid, as I did above. We’ve made that mistake before. Give me a launch system with the kind of safety,reliability and reusability of a 747 and I’d rule the solar system (Mu, ha ha!).
tinker
Irrespective of the origins of the content, compare the content and objectives set forth in the NASA Charter (NASA Space Act – Public Law 111-314 Title 51) to the content and objectives of the China Space Activities 2011 White Paper.
I think you will find the China White Paper beats the NASA Charter in key performance areas including solid economic outcomes for China, gains in China’s technology, intellectual property assets, and industry. The U.S. Charter is outdated, amorphous, a set of solutions looking for a problem, and a political tool that has been ineffective for the U.S. for decades and will be just as ineffective for this decade.
Dogstar3 and Steve Whitfield are correct, the Chinese are calculated and paced and are keen on saving face, metering out national positions on White Papers, and playing smartly with respect to the U.S. China is on the upward curve to space with great fiscal strength and mission outcomes that will yield value gains. The U.S. is on the downward curve with dwindling fiscal strength, a Charter that is pathetic, a White House and Congress that generally wishes NASA would just go away and even worse has no awareness of the value NASA is capable of providing to the U.S. Congress’s residual play is to twist NASA into a jobs program for the States and their special interests, without regard to practical or useful outcomes for the Nation.
While there are numerous social benefit pursuit similarities in China’s plans in the areas of transportation, observation, PNT, and exploration, it is clear China has a stronger and clearer intent to secure real results and gains from their space program efforts. They are not exploration “wanderers” building rockets and spacecraft to explore aimlessly. They are going after specific things of value. China is not as politically driven or dominated by the special interests of the aerospace community to “just keep building billions of dollars of transportation systems” absent any real idea of a business case that justifies the expenditures.
Perhaps the root of evil or at least the root of incompetence for the U.S. is that the White House, the Congress, and all of the committees, agencies and offices that surround them, e.g. – OSTP, OMB, GAO, etc., are notionless as to what the real value of having humans in space is. Their growth stunted at the let’s go “where no man has gone before” Star Trek phase. They simply cannot comprehend what truly valuable things can be secured from humans being in space pursuing worthwhile missions woud be. They will spend $100 Billion on hardware, but not a fraction of that on the effective use of that hardware. The Hill only knows how to spend money, not make money (meaning they don’t know how to create real value and valuable outputs). China is the antithesis of the U.S., they are all about making money and creating valuable outputs.
Examine the China 2011 White Paper. Look at the words used, they are key:
strengthening construction, production, innovation, leap-frog development, technology, industry, intellectual property rights (patents), enterprise, national economic development, technological breakthroughs, master space station key technologies, materials science, crop breeding, microgravity, etc.
Are those the words the U.S. NASA Charter contains? No. The NASA Charter uses key words like:
expand knowledge, establish studies, cooperate with others, preserve preeminent position, peaceful and scientific purposes, peaceful application, etc.
Which of the two is stronger? Which one is more pathetic and flimsy?
China has businessmen and technologists running their programs. The U.S. has politicians running the show. NASA has great technical expertise and space competency. But where are the seasoned businessmen, economic analysts, market interfaces, and private sector integrators in NASA? They don’t exist.
Decades ago the NASA Charter was designed for a Nation that was economically strong and where space wanderers could find spare billions to play with in space. Those days are gone. Congress needs to revamp the NASA Charter so it matches today’s U.S. economic circumstances, real needs and pragmatic National interests. Until that gets done and done right, U.S. Space interests and NASA will simply continue to erode or just go down in flames.
~
“The U.S. has politicians running the show. NASA has great technical
expertise and space competency. But where are the seasoned businessmen,
economic analysts, market interfaces, and private sector integrators in
NASA?”
Within NASA it has largely become political and not expertise or competency running the show.
Recently the ISS Program decided they’d forgotten to get in gear for utilization, instead having focused solely on assembly ops.
Who is in charge of designing the new spacecraft? The ops engineers, because they were the last ones in power. You wonder why Constellation could not figure out how to establish meaningful and achievable requirements? Start with people in charge who had never defined or developed a requirement in their careers. Maybe with $15 billion and 7 years they’ve learned something?
Now, ISS has decided to strip the technical integration experts out of payloads and utilization. Their payloads and utilization managers are now decreed the strategic business analysts and private sector integrators. Until a couple years ago, their head of utilization had never worked utilization or integration. Now he is the instant expert in private sector analysis and integration.
And people wonder why NASA cannot seem to get anything accomplished without being billions upon billions over budget?
“Perhaps the root of evil or at least the root of incompetence for the U.S. is that the White House, the Congress, and all … are notionless as to what the real value of having humans in space is.”
npng,
True enough, but it doesn’t stop there. I think the list of people who “are notionless as to what the real value of having humans in space is” includes not only the power brokers that you listed but also the average Joe and Jane Public, the media, and unfortunately, a large percentage of the people who work in aerospace and industries that support it, and, if we’re going to be honest, a majority of the self-proclaimed space advocates. In fact, I don’t think I would be wrong to say the list includes most of the people on the planet.
It’s pretty tough to get people aligned together behind something, when the “something” is so ill defined. Personally, I’ve been a space advocate for decades, and in that time I have redefined in my own mind (as I’ve learned more) why we should be in space, what specifically we should be doing there (prioritized), and what the reasons and values are of pursing space. So, ask different people at different times, and you get as many different answers. Is it settlement, resources, science, exploration, safety of the race, a psychological need, what? What is the real value of having humans in space?
It’s a good question, and you raised the issue, but didn’t give us your take on it. What do you think npng? What is the real value of having humans in space?
Steve
PS: Comparing China’s space activities to those of the US is fair, but comparing a brand new white paper to an evolved law I think is maybe comparing apples and oranges.
enough talk and analysis, time to get out and do something to protect US interests
you want to keep china back on heir heels with spacex type yankee know how try this ! lolol
A fun thought for the NEW YEAR and maybe the future of HSF
Mr. Consequence, Mr. W. E. Coyote, Mr. Winfield and other open creative minds at NASA WATCH
We at Inner Solar System Exploration Unlimited ISSEU are interested in building a spaceship. We are interested in doing for Space travel /exploration the same thing that Spacex is doing for launch. We want to provide scalable modular integrated space travel systems that can put explorers anywhere in the inner solar system at a fixed price.
At present we are planning on having Spacex provide falcon heavy launch to get our spaceship building components to orbit for assembly. We intend on using Bigelow for inflatable habitat systems. Spacex will design and provide us with moon and planet landers with propulsion based on their Dragon LAS and shaped using their falcon second stage form factor.
At present we see our spaceship or spaceships as first acting like LEO stations. Next providing transportation to the moon, having the ability to fly by near earth asteroids and comets, Venus flybys, Mercury flybys and landings, asteroid belt missions, Mars moon missions and finally Mars landings as well as our ships being turned into moon and mars recyclers. Our systems should have the best radiation protection currently possible plus some artificial gravity systems for our longer missions.
We believe that if we approach the spaceship the same way Spacex approached the launch to Leo that we can provided the cheapest best solution for countries or companies wishing to explore or take humans to develop resources anywhere in the inner solar system.
With countries like the USA wasting their limited resources on big rockets and the poor world economic forecast we see this as an opportunity. We feel that we could be the soul exploration spaceship provider for the near future if we start now.
Please help us to design our Spaceship to become the engine for the inner solar system railroad.
Time table goal
2020 Leo
2025 moon missions
2030 all inner solar system
Space exploration can be affordable with smartly designed reusable spaceships and we intend to prove it!
Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions
Noofcsq
We at ISSEU wonder what your students might think of our company and we hope to hire many of your students very soon. It would be nice to have many of the Orion people working for us too. : )
If you are thinking that perhaps a new spaceship division of Spacex could possibly do what we are proposing in the very near future. You may be right. : )
We sure could use your advice on how to design an affordable spaceship so that human space flight can survive.
Imagine NASA telling a future congress or president that they can do an inner solar system HSF mission with- in 4 years from proposal to flight or boots on the ground at a inexpensive fix dependable price.
Who they gonna call, Inner Solar System Exploration Unlimited ISSEU, The price busters.
DOESN’T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTISTT
Spacecraft “R” US Canada
1961 Spaceway Blvd.
Ontario, Canada
January 1, 2012
Dear Mr. DTARS,
Thank you for your recently submitted letter pertaining to building a spaceship for Inner Solar System Exploration Unlimited. We have reviewed your ISSEU requirements carefully and feel that the resolution of certain details for your spaceship requirements would be required before we could develop a proposal for your review.
One particular item made for much discussion here at SRU, and that is the “one size fits all” nature of the spacecraft you are interested in. It has been our experience that, while modularity, reusable components, and above all, reusable design are beneficial and desirable traits, which we attempt to employ in all of our products, the plan for one spaceship to serve so many different functions will inevitably lead to both design and efficiency problems that are insurmountable. While we can design and build you a spacecraft with a certain amount of capability to evolve for changing functions, a single spaceship to acceptably perform all of the functions that you have listed is simply not within the current or near-future technological capabilities at our disposal. I think you will find that other aerospace companies will, if they are honest, give you a similar assessment of the situation. If I may be informal for a moment, one of our engineers decided, “what these people want is a Millennium Falcon.”
Spacecraft “R” US Canada would be most interested in discussing your requirements further. Our experienced engineers can work closely with your engineering and program people to develop a specification for a spaceship that gives you the greatest portion of the functionality you require, while staying within the limits of available materials and technology. As always, there are price and schedule trade-offs as well to consider.
Thank you again for your interest in Spacecraft “R” US Canada, and I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Whitfield
Imagination Manager
Spacecraft “R” US Canada
January 3 2012ISSEUThe near future is nowMr. Whitfield“One particular item made for much discussion here at SRU, and that is the “one size fits all” nature of the spacecraft you are interested in.” Perhaps I was unclear. We are NOT proposing a one size fits all solution. We are thinking MUCH more modular. Think more like a railroad train with cars with different functions you could have different types of propulsion systems like steam, desael or electric. You can do the same with spacecraft. We realize that to get to different parts of the inner solar system that the size of the tracks might even be different. Don’t limit our request by our grand goal. Those in academia have suggested that NASA build grand spaceships instead of big rockets with heavy capsules. We KNOW that we being a commercial enterprise can do that cheaper and better than a public program can. We would hope to work closely with NASA for R and D. We do realize that there will be many different requirements for our spaceships. We don’t envision one craft like the million falcon or 2001s discovery. Our ships would each be more like a collection of modules that can be added to or subtracted from depending on their particular mission requirements. Boot trapping. The idea is to take some basic modules and then let mission requirements be used to either modify our vehicle/or vehicles/or vehicle modules as well as creating infrastructure that can be used again and again to over the long term create tracks throughout the inner solar system. We could possibly have 3 or more different types propulsions systems as well as different types of habitat modules each which could possibly be themselves modular and possibly have them all be able to be mixed and match for different missions. We could end up with different classes of ships that don’t interchange at all and that’s fine. During our pre plan stage we want to look at the different inner solar system flight requirements so that we can design propulsion or habitat MODULES that have the most in common there by simplifying structure and cost. Perhaps you could be of service to us. We have taken note that you have the unique ability to engage with members of the aerospace community bringing useful ideas to the surface for the rest of us. Dare I say you are a knowledge vampire. Anyway if you could keep our Spaceship/MODULAR train company goals in mind and ask questions to the right people at the right time perhaps we could get more information that could be used to form a true useful buildable MODULAR spaceship PLAN in the near future as well as getting people excited about AFFORDABLE spaceship based SPACE EXPLORATION.As we all know reusability is critical for affordable human space flight and just as we are finally attacking that problem in launch we need to do the same with SPACE EXPLORATION and not let space exploration be just another excuse for a wasteful big government jobs program. Steve as little as I know about aerospace I strongly believe that many if not all the obstacles to human space flight can be solved with some good old creative design and the proper commercial environment PLUS properly controlled public R and D. You throw in the ability for people to put their heads together on the internet and who knows : ) Things could happen faster than most think. We at ISSEU thank you for your interest and time, DOESN’T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTISTT PS Tell Tinker/ Mr. Coyote I think he needs to divide his heavy lifter by 9 tugs not 6tugs and then get NASA to add 3 tugs/strap ons to SLS the smallest tug being under the hydro tank then throw the rest of SLS away leaving us with a Smaller 3 tug tinker heavy lifter. They could still put Orion on top of the hydro tank. He has 30 months to sell it : ) Just add recoverable tugs on that thrust frame 9tugs 12tugs lolol unlimited future design : ) Stay tuned for merlin rocket assist for BFJs hummm what would a BFJ bi plane look like : ) make your they make that big hanger tall enough lol
On second thought tell tinker to write Spacex with paper and a stamp. Spacex will do his heavy lifter tug idea cheaper and better. Elon has just said he wants to be on Mars in twenty so he will need tinkers lifter in 25 LOLOL
DTARS
Mr. Whitfield/winfield
Icouldn’t spell my own namw without a spell checker
SPACE 101 – How to compete with China
First we will cover Chinese culture, history, and language to understand why they compete the way that they do, which is unlike most nations in the world. Next, we will study the likely resources they will have to work with, as well as social, political, and geographic limitations – so we can assess strengths and weaknesses they have in the manned space exploration game.
Having established a background for the area, the gradual plan they will attempt will be set back and advanced from time to time. While it will be tempting to think of them as being as easily drive into a panic, to cause them to build a colossal HLV or spaceplane to spend them dry, ignorance of Chinese basics already covered is a fast ticket to flunking this course.
Extra credit though may be found by those who notice non-traditional ways to undercut basic aerospace technology cost floors – since the Chinese got this basic technology from the US and Russia – and is deeply whetted to it – as much of so called “old space” is – this is painful for them (as it is for “old space”). Because the justified fear is that they either compete with too old costlier technology, or risk too much by not bringing off too new replacements for it.
So what would out competing look like? Multiple concurrent HSF programs that incrementally added (or returned) capability to US exploration. Why this would be a big win, is that a planned vertical program fears the blind spots it paints itself into corners with. With more options can come greater adaptability to challenge – that is when it isn’t monkey wrenched by pork barrel politics, favoritism of primes, NASA culture narrowmindedness, or other forms of “American exceptionalism”.
To be competitive in space with all, America competes best … by competing with itself appropriately. And doing the hard word of getting those systems reliable and working soonest.
You all know what is needed to do exemplary. Bickering and playing favorites like you often do, won’t even get a pass.