Partnering With China in Space?
Time for the U.S. to Partner With China in Space?, opinion, George Abbey and Leroy Chiao, DIscovery News
“The U.S. is at a decision point. On its present course, the United States will lose at least the perceived leadership role in human space exploration. But there is an alternate path and one that would again provide for dual access to the Space Station. The U.S. could lead the way to bring China into the ISS program, and lead the work to adapt the Shenzhou spacecraft to be compatible with the ISS. The U.S. would continue funding the three commercial space endeavors to supplement and support the logistic needs of the Station.”
Earlier posts on China in space
noo noo noo noo……
Competition is good.
Collaboration is good.
Partnership is inefficient and kills motivation.
The only thing the US has to do is stop trying to run the space program in Soviet style, and this is now finally starting to happen.
I wouldn’t mind one bit if both the US and China have Mars bases. They can then collaborate on joint projects on Mars as they see fit. But it’s important that both the US and China will always want to have bigger bases there.
What’s Soviet style?
Like Gangnam style, but in Cyrillic?
meekGee,
Sorry, but I can’t agree entirely. Your contention that “partnership is inefficient and kills motivation” applies in a situation where there is already a well-established “marketplace,” and where all of each player’s efforts (excluding some R&D) are aimed at that marketplace. That is not the situation with the US and China and space.
We do not have an established “marketplace”; not even close. We are — still — at the beginning stage in space. Back and forth to the ISS, and “talk” about doing something non-specific on the Moon and later Mars, is not a basis for progress via competition. Collaboration is as much political as it is functional, but it at least does provide some benefits, although limited, at this point.
When you talk about competing with Mars bases I’m with you, but that is a long way off — it’s the same old fundamental problem: how do we get from here to there? from diddling around in LEO to Mars bases and beyond?
While we’re still at the diddling stage, competition is not going to benefit us. The exception I see is in the LV price business, but that is going on completely independent of which nations might be cooperating.
The other factor is that, in the real world, neither the US nor China, nor anybody else, is going to be limiting its efforts to the “marketplace” (the common space efforts) even if everybody claimed to be gung-ho for space collaboration. The unfortunate bad habits of nationalism are still very much part of human nature the world ’round. So most everybody is going to have their own (probably secret) space programs going on as well, which will add nothing to either competition or collaboration.
So, no established space marketplace and no major commitments to the “for all mankind” ideal. Taken together, this suggests very strongly to me that, at this point in time, we have much to gain and little to lose by collaborating with China — and any other non-belligerent nation/entity with a willingness to be “on the team.” And besides, one never knows where the next great idea or science/technology breakthrough is going to come from. If its discoverer is already on the team, then it will save years and billions of dollars (and probably many lives) in the inevitable pursuit of everybody getting the new goodies. If an “outsider” should get it first, particularly a non-friendly nation, then it will almost certainly get ugly, in terms of safety, politics, and economics. If the US continues to exclude China from cooperation in space (and continues with the idiotic comments from people like Wolfe), what will happen if China, or one of its satellites/allies, discovers the next big technology? Will they share it with the free world, making us look petty by comparison, or will they keep it to themselves (following the example set by others) thereby increasing international tensions once again? We can easily affect that outcome now by growing up and inviting China to play ball with the gang, which I think they want, and which I believe will benefit everybody.
I’m also think of a somewhat idealistic aspect of this (from a political/social point of view); if we can get through the collaborative/cooperative period on a more or less “friendly” basis, then when the competitive stage comes along, further down the road, chances are good it can be a more “friendly” competition, as opposed to the adversarial examples of the past. Not taking steps toward that better future would be a sad commentary on our maturity.
Steve
Look at ISS. Since there’s no marketplace or competition to just hanging out in LEO, what we got is an anemic, motivation-less project. Why do anything better if there’s only one ISS, and there’s no race?
If you want a serious Mars colony, don’t have a US-China one. Have one of each. It doesn’t mean we need to have a cold war – it is just an incentive to be better, like in the free market – something to compete against.
Think of car companies – if all car makers united and collaborated on making a better car, you wouldn’t get a better car – you’d get a sucky and expensive car. That doesn’t mean that they don’t sometimes work together on stuff, but the most important thing is that they battle over the same market.
That, plus the immediate drawbacks of multi-national collaborations: The bureaucracy, the slow-down in communication, the culture, language, time zones…
When Elon Musk has an idea for a new way to do something with his rocket, he walks down one floor and talks to the engine team about it. Before the day is over, they know if they have a good idea at hand. When things are spread out over countries and continents, this is impossible – all you get is a fight between procurement officers over who is going to be charged for the hours that are spent discussing the change, and whose at “fault” for the change. yuck. Seen it.
If the Chinese are up for it, let them have a team, motivated by Chinese pride, whose goal is to beat the US team at its own game. Let the Europeans have one too.
They can then collaborate on things, but only when it makes sense to all of them, within the context of competition, and while keeping their individual identities.
Surely there must be some people in Wolf’s district who have ties with China and are willing to expose his bizarre ideas.
This article would’ve been better as two separate pieces, cut right in the middle between the rather tired Shuttle/Orion bemoaning and the actual content the title refers to, the part worth reading. Whether or not the US’s present course actually will result in a loss of leadership, perceived or otherwise, is both debatable and not especially relevant to whether or not partnerships with China in space would be beneficial. Although for being an article ostensibly about partnership benefits, the words “leader” and “leadership” sure do show up a lot.
Obviously dual access to ISS is very important, and China and Russia are going to continue being the only HSF games in town for at least another three years. Almost nothing can reduce that time table. If Soyuz rockets were to start blowing up on the pad tomorrow, we’d have no choice but to abandon the station. That’s one partnership opportunity. Beyond that, if dual access became a reality on ISS, it would presumably also be arranged on whatever station China puts in orbit. That’s another platform with the potential to complement ISS in capabilities and areas of research.
But that’s just all LEO stuff, I’d rather see NASA keep expanding the boundaries of exploring other planets, their moons, comets, and deep space. This can yield great scientific benefit with or without partnerships, and it seems much less prone to political nonsense than the HSF programs whose goal changes with each election cycle so fast that the “goal” never even solidifies into an actual mission. Without the budgetary tug of war over HSF, for example, NASA might still be contributing to ExoMars.. Are there any other multi-agency robotic missions in the pipeline? No? There’s more opportunity for partnerships, then.
Matt,
Your post brings to mind the CASIS business again. Standing back and looking at LEO/ISS objectively, and without the political and racial biases, I think the US missed out on an obvious opportunity. If we are faced with the fact that we don’t have US HSF access to space, and probably won’t for quite a while yet, then why not let Russia and China provide the access (belt and suspenders) while the US uniquely provides one or more other essential functions/capabilities.
As an example possibility, if the CASIS organization had done before now what it was set up to do, that would have been of very significant value to the US. As a logical extension of this, if it had demonstrated its worth, then perhaps its operations could have been provided for the entire ISS, instead of just the US National Lab. This would (presumably) have been of benefit to the entire ISS partnership, just as human access to space is of benefit to the entire partnership. I strongly believe that distribution of duties and capabilities makes a lot more economic sense than every partner developing and being capable of doing every aspect of the program. In all honesty, if everybody insists on doing everything for themselves, as opposed to being a true partnership, then the one and only “benefit” to any collaboration on the ISS is political. Nothing is gained economically or technically; in fact everybody probably sees a net loss in both categories.
There are other (perhaps better) possibilities as well, situations where the US could have accelerated work on other essential (but less expensive and competitive) requirements, such as improved closed-cycle ECS, food preparation and storage, improved space suits, off-Earth farming, and/or a whole lot of other technologies/systems which are currently being funded and worked on at what seems like a snail’s pace. Any of these, or a combination, brought to a state of ISS usability would make the US a more valuable partner, and would render the missing HSF LV issue as much less important to both the US and its ISS partners. (Congress, I’m sure, would still want its BFR.) Some of these contributions would be usable beyond the ISS as well, for BEO and scientific missions, which is in line with the original non-political justification for building a space station (IAW 1980’s/Reagan Freedom presentations).
My basic point is that, to date, ISS “partnership” has too often had a very close similarity to one-up-manship, which completely defeats the purpose. If we had different partners each addressing specialty areas, the partnership as a whole would make progress much more quickly, based on logical distribution of man-power and money. It might also, in theory, reduce the possibilities of one nation basically holding another for ransom on costs (such a the price hikes in Soyuz rides) if everybody has unique, mutually-beneficial contributions to the whole with which to negotiate.
If the political power brokers can grow up enough to understand this type of proposal, then I see it as one more strong argument to invite China into the ISS partnership. It would also be a test case and precedent-setting for future undertakings, such as a Mars colony, because, despite what others choose to believe, I don’t think that is something that can ever be accomplished by, and in particular sustained by, a single nation. I also think it would be a serious social mistake if different nations had their own colonies on Mars, or even the Moon. We’ve played that game for thousands of years, and in the long run, everything considered, it didn’t work out very well. Just my thoughts.
Steve
I wonder why China would want to partner with us? Do we have anything to offer? Its true there is an ISS up there. But as far as anything new and in the future, the Chinese are the ones who have recently completed design and building of new manned spacecraft. We have not. We’ve been working on Orion for 7 or 8 years, only the command capsule, no service module, and the command capsule does not seem to perform its primary function of actually staying together and holding air. So apparently we failed at that part. Oh well. What do they think they could learn from us? Maybe we could learn something from them.
From Spaceflightnow.com: “Three cracks appeared in NASA’s first space-bound Orion crew exploration vehicle during a proof pressure test this month, according to agency officials, but the anomaly and anticipated repairs are not expected to impact the schedule for the capsule’s first orbital test flight in late 2014.”
That’s right, you Orion aficionados try to put a good face on it, but how do you spend $15 billion over 7+ years, and get so little out of it and it takes until now to find that its improperly designed?
Agreed. I will never understand how the cost of building this piece of crap aluminum can cost more than the cost(including R&D) of a new super carrier (the Gerald R. Ford Class). Seriously!?! How can a 20 ton capsule cost more than a 100,000 ton floating fortress?
I don’t know where he gets his numbers from but I would not be surprised if he is also including the Constellation and the resulting SLS development into the total.
The capsule does not weigh 20 tons, it weighs a little less than 10 tons. With the service module including the engine and propellant the system weighs over 20 tons. It is in fact a BEO space craft.
True, I might have gone too far in agreement with Brian without proper references. But then again the numbers are somewhat of a mystery to everyone. I know a little over $8 billion was appropriated to the Orion capsule when it was still part of constellation. But how much of that was already spent by the time it was cancelled? That and the little information that is given in how much has been spent and was appropriated since the 2010 Space Act was passed. Finally given the history of NASA contractors constantly going over budget on these flagship projects I really wouldn’t be surprised if the total cost doesn’t end up somewhere around $15 billion.
Also, I know it is not 20 tons I was giving an approximate figure for the capsule, service module, engines, etc., because ultimately those parts are still figured into the total cost of Orion as they are necessity for it to fulfill its mission (whatever that may be).
The bottom line is that Orion for what it’s worth seems ridiculously expensive especially when compared to the 100,000 ton nuclear powered aircraft carrier that contains all sorts of new technologies. I might be comparing apples to oranges here, but considering the standard cost of R&D, manpower for construction, material cost, and other expenses not named I believe the comparison legitimate in showing how much of a waste of money Orion is.
What, do you think because it is a BEO spacecraft you have to mine special pixy dust and that is what drives up the expense? It is just frigging aluminum probably with fewer constraints on it than your typical jet plane or automobile. And as you say, what they’ve been working on does not weight 20 tons-only 10. So we are getting only half of what we should have for the money spent. Fact is this contractor is soaking the American taxpayer for everything they can get, while drawing out the development time for as long as they can, and the NASA simple servants are not doing their job of ensuring that the US taxpayer gets what they are paying for. As I say we might learn something by watching the Chinese at work; just as we are seeing how Space X or ESA do the job-quickly and for as little money as possible.
“the command capsule does not seem to perform its primary function of actually staying together and holding air.”
Absolutely wrong.
Here is what actually happened:
“The cracks are in three adjacent, radial ribs of this integrally machined, aluminum bulkhead,” Buck said. “The cracks did not penetrate the pressure vessel skin, and the structure was holding pressure after the anomaly occurred.”
Ralphy,
Quite aside from holding air, something cracked, and that, in my mind, makes for a very bad day. If the basic bulkhead structure can’t survive a pressure test, what is going to crack on launch? This is scary.
Steve
Not only is the capsule going to be test launched 3600 miles from earth but then they are going to do a test of the capsule using the escape launch system. After all of that is checked out and reviewed then they will launch the capsule and the service module unmanned around the moon and back.
Weird. When I was a child growing up in the 80’s I was fastened by my grandparents stories of the great depression. Fighting (and winning) World War II. Landing men on the moon, etc…
In 1985, while the great generation was still running things, I thought what a great future we’ll have. By this time we would have a colony on the moon, men and women taking the first steps on Mars. Etc…
Well here it is in 2012. The great generation is all but gone, and far from running things anymore. Never in my wildest imagination would I think in 2012 the USA has to buy rides into space from the Russians. China has a space station all their own. But hey, look on the Brightside! I can watch movies and TV on my PHONE?
(don’t forget) on your Chinese made phone!
Folks:
Bottom line: We go together to space, as one planet, or we go apart… and we know where that’ll lead!
tinker
This is the choice that policymakers face. Do we embrace commercial partnerships, or do we cling to the Apollo government-centric myth, but only achieve Apollo-Soyuz, as we back ourselves into a deal with China…
Jim,
“Policymakers” may well be that limited in their thinking, but there are other possibilities than just repeating what’s been done before.
The US, I believe, is benefiting significantly from pursuing the “commercial” approach to space (we need a better name) combined with non-FAR-type contracts. Other countries, who currently aren’t, could be doing the same.
I’ve seen op ed pieces about China competing with SpaceX (a country with a company!). One thing that the US can “offer” China (the country and its people, not the government) is a start towards a non-military, non-government Chinese space industry.
To the best of my knowledge, all space work currently being done by Chinese companies is for government programs. They have no non-military contracts (unlike Russia, Japan and India). Even their comms stuff is military/government. Image the rate of progress and the cost reductions if we were cooperating with a Chinese version of SpaceX. The world would have another set of entrepreneurs, finding other ways, and perhaps carrying part of the load (why should every country, or for that matter every company, build everything from LVs to docking rings?)
If we were to evolve into a situation where one country’s commercial companies made LVs, another spacecraft, a third rocket engines, etc. (obviously I’m grossly simplifying here), then we could “evolve” mankind’s space development in the same way that subsistence farming villages evolved into cooperative town’s and eventually today’s world. There would still be a place for governments; they would be necessary to stimulate new industry, same as always, and to negotiate regulations and international/space laws.
My point is that there are certainly lots of possibilities besides what’s been done in the past and what we’re doing now. The concept I’ve outlined may see mighty far fetched (it does to me), but 20 years ago if someone had proposed a company doing what SpaceX et al have done in the last few years, no one would have taken it seriously. Hell, if 30 years ago anyone had told us the US would be relying on Russia for space access and seriously considering adding China too, would you have bought it?
The methods of the past and the present are not working. We need to figure out how to initiate activities that are beyond the scope of the stagnant policymakers. It certainly needn’t be limited to commercial or Apollo-Soyuz.
Steve
Although China’s domestic satellites are largely government-owned, it has provided launch services for commercial customers in a number of other countries including (until it was forbidden by US law) the US, through the China Great Wall Industry Corporation, which despite its government charter is run as a commercial entity.
http://www.nasaspaceflight….
I would say SpaceX is in competition with CGWIC rather than with China as a country.
vulture4,
I hear what you’re saying, good point. But the English speaking media talks of “China” and almost never mentions Great Wall, as far as I can see, whereas the distinction between government and non-government players is made clear on this side of the world.
Also, consider that Apstar-7 is a Chinese satellite and sat comms in China are still under government control. And although Great Wall is often presented as a commercial entity, it is really on a very tight government leash.
The point I’m trying to make is that, no matter how they label it or dress it up, everything space in China is still under direct government control, much like NASA is here, except more so. I can’t see Great Wall as their version of SpaceX or even Boeing. If someone at Great Wall proposed developing a new LV because it would be suitable for other countries’ satellite (or other payload) launches (for money), but had no direct applicability to China’s government space program, do you think they would be allowed to do it?
This is the sort of proposal that would originate with a Marketing Manager. I have no first-hand knowledge, but a well-connected colleague of mine told me that there are no Marketing Managers in Chinese space/aerospace. All decisions instead originate with a government (military) committee, even programs for comm stats and GPS. If that is actually true, then breaking through that barrier I would say would be a lot more important and productive than a collaboration with a Chinese government program (Jim’s Apollo-Soyuz option).
In areas where their industries have managed to break free, in whole or in part, from the absolute control of the central planning authorities (which appears to be happening more often now) the Chinese people have shown themselves to be a force to be reckoned with, and very capable at both adopting and developing new ways to do things. I can’t help but feel that if we could get them “on our team,” in the same sense that SpaceX is, we could see a significant improvement in overall space accomplishments. And as an added (very important) benefit, on both sides of the planet I think we’d see less of a stranglehold on space programs by the various governments.
Space development could become increasingly “commercial,” and then many of the various arguments that people have been putting forth — like competition between providers, specialization, closed business cases, etc. — could actually become factors in our progress — as a race, not as a country, which is the final major hurdle. We usually talk about HSF, not USSF, RSF, or CSF, so let’s start seriously thinking and acting Human, not US, Russian or Chinese, and maybe a lot of things will get better. Just my thoughts.
Steve
I agree. But the most effective way to speared US ideas about competition and collaboration in China would be by working directly with them on the ISS.
I agree, absolutely.
I would like to see………..
(A)(1) the Chinese at ISS
(A)(2) the ISS partners at the Chinese space station, even if in a modest way
(B)(1) common docking tools to enable rescue and multiple space stations
(B)(2) any Chinese,ISS partner state,and commercial crew be able to dock with the other.This could be demonstrated with a Boeing/Dragon demonstration rescue mission and a later Chinese/Russian common docking missions( add Orion/Dragon/Boeing docking missions).
(B)(3) EML space stations will be very modest affairs if something goes wrong we might need an abort “between crewed vehicles” to get us home
There is a lot that could be learned on both sides. Most important, we can learn to get beyond our xenophobia and start working with real people from China instead of speculating about their goals in space as though they were mysterious beings from another planet. The ISS program would get a new partner with deep pockets and man-rated rockets.
The fly in the ointment is Frank Wolf (R-VA), powerful chairman of the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations subcommittee, who has threatened to quash NASA like a bug if it so much as mentions the word “China”.
vulture4,
Guys like Wolf have made space politics much like the history of science — new (and better) ideas/theories were rejected out of hand until the old masters died off and a new generation took over. The problem I see with space politics is that, like politics in general, many of the younger generations simply adopt what their parents said, instead of thinking for themselves, so things are very slow to change. We somehow need to get people thinking again, instead of just being proud to perpetuate the family/town status quo.
I certainly agree with you that there is a lot that could be learned on both sides; not all of it technical by a long shot.
Steve
meekGee,
I have no argument with this, but you’ve overlooked the catch. You acknowledge that there is no marketplace (specifically, the ISS is not one); then you jump straight back to Mars colonies without addressing the problem of how to get from here to there. We are not at the point where we can seriously consider building a Mars colony, not even close to it, despite what many believe, so Mars is completely irrelevant to the discussion of our relationship with China now.
The car company and Elon Musk analogies don’t enter into the China situation either, because in both of those cases there is an established marketplace, whereas in the case of competition in space with China, as we’ve both said, there is currently no marketplace in which to compete, so no competition is possible. Not only must there be a market for competition to be a factor, but both parties must be after the same market. If you’re playing basketball and I’m playing baseball, we can’t compete.
The manner in which these countries are currently “competing” is entirely political, and each has its own set of goals, which are almost entirely independent of the other’s goals. This, to me, is one good argument for collaboration — it will, to some extent at least, give these countries some common goals, and then we have the potential to see mutual benefits. At least, that’s how I see it.
Steve
Well, I think common goals are there – or will be the minute one country sets a goal for itself that the other country cannot ignore.
I think Mars is closer than you think. The more we learn about it, the more doable it seems, and the only remaining problem is really transport – which is now getting solved.
It’s mostly an issue of will power and of willing to take risks, and there’s nothing like competition to make that happen.
We’ve had the US-USSR race to the moon, but that didn’t end too well – the governmental nature of the race, as well as the specifics of the moon, made it into a flag-planting competition.
But imagine that the race is about economic interest on Mars.
Imagine (shudder) a colony staffed by Mars Society people and funded by Google, and one staffed by Planetary Society people funded by Apple. (Microsoft and SFF people?) My GOD! I’d better get back to doing something productive!
Brian,
Sounds formal and legitimate, which I like, but Federated, by definition, still implies government and/or nation. We need to have a label specifying a non-government entity, although they can still work with the government, just not be part of it, or directly responsible to it.
We also need something that is either brief, or can be easily abbreviated, and Federated would likely give us Feds, the opposite of what we want. Thanks though.
Steve
If this becomes another conduit for China to obtain access to US technology, then no way. If on the other hand this truly is a leadership opportunity of the US, and the roles are clearly defined and understood, then maybe. But US interests must be protected, and the Chinese clearly want to establish (paraphrasing the words of their White Paper) ” their rightful claims to lunar resources. So in the short term, no.
“the Chinese clearly want to establish … their rightful claims to lunar resources“
Space4US,
What’s the problem with that? However one might word it, all nations want that, even those possessing no technology with which to acquire or use those resources now or in the near future. According to the “The Outer Space Treaty” (and implied by the Apollo 11 plaque), these resources are owned by no one, but are for the use of “all mankind.” Therefore all nations have “rightful claims” to a portion of any lunar resources. You seem to be saying: 1) that China can’t have access to lunar resources; and 2) the US must have “leadership” and China be a follower in any “Partnering” (as the thread title calls it). Is this in fact what your comment means? If so, on what possible basis can you propose either notion? If this is not what you really meant, can you please explain what you did mean?
Steve
You don’t give someone the means to shut you out of access to valuable resources. This is the clear danger.
As to the Outer Space Treaty Look and see who some of the last nations to compete Accession to the Outer Space Treaty. It may be time to seriously reconsider whether the Outer Space is really appropriate anymore.
As to conern for respecting the rights of others in space, look who created a large amount of space debris, on purpose.
More and more the answer to the question of this thread appears to be no.
One of the prime purposes of the Outer Space Treaty was to keep in line nations with exactly the attitude you seem to be displaying. Notice that many of the signatory countries have no space capability, then or now, and don’t show any signs of developing space capability any time soon. They signed the Treaty in an attempt to keep first comers (including the US) from claiming all the resources, a move which anyone with brains would have made.
There are certainly outdated clauses in the Treaty which need updating, in particular differentiating between nations and companies, but that is a very different matter.
You seem to be suggesting that the Treaty should be “reconsidered” because you want the US to be able to grab for itself whatever it wants (“You don’t give someone the means to shut you out of access to valuable resources“) — exactly what the Treaty was created to prevent. If that’s the case, then I’d say your use of the word “appropriate” is very much inappropriate.
What about the other countries who are already in space and in a position to use resources from space? Should the US un-partner with them, in your opinion, so that steps can be taken to try and shut them out, too? Or is it just China you want to keep from retaining its legal entitlement?
The difference is that the pace of China’s program, run by a pretty autonomous military by the way, is increasing. I say again, you don’t
give any assistance to someone who is trying to beat you. If we do, we become second rate at our peril.
Why are Americans so blind and naive? Its like we want to explore so much, that it overwhelms our sense of discernment even when it puts our national security at risk. China is not our friend and unlike Russia, following its collapse in the early nineties, China is on the rise and threatening. This is not the time to partner.
Without wanting to claim that the advancement of China today is anything like the threat that the USSR was before Apollo, certainly on a military level, I still have to ask: where in the hell is our competitive drive? Why are we talking about trying to contain China’s advance and bring them into the fold of our stalled and pointless space program, rather than about simply getting and staying far ahead of them? To me, the really alarming thing isn’t the Chinese; it’s us — it’s our decline. I have no problem with China achieving great things in space — in fact, I welcome it. But there’s no earthly reason why the United States shouldn’t be the clear global leader for the foreseeable future, continually setting the bar for every other player. From the end of the Cold War until now, we’ve had the luxury of not having any serious competition, and we used the time to putter around with grandiose schemes (an EM-L2 space station?) while being mired in LEO, going in circles. Now we no longer have that luxury. Are we really okay with China establishing Earth’s first lunar base, or conducting humanity’s first manned excursion to Mars? Because if things continue as they’ve been since the end of Apollo-Skylab, that is what’s going to happen.