China's Space Program – Still Years behind U.S.?
John Kelly: In space, Chinese are still far behind, Florida Today
“But, don’t let yourself get caught up in the idea that the Chinese are somehow gaining ground and soon to pass the United States, Russia or their partners in the International Space Station project. Also, don’t get too concerned that the Chinese have their own system to launch an astronaut crew to space and the U.S. does not.
The Chinese achievements are interesting to watch, but they’re decades behind veteran space-faring nations like the U.S. and Russia. Their flight is not to some sprawling orbiting laboratory like the ISS. Rather, they docked their 60s-era Shenzou spacecraft to a tiny, one-module space station that is a little over one-tenth of the size of the U.S. Skylab and Russian Salyut stations of decades past.”
Mars’c note: The Chinese are definitely behind but those supposed “60’s era Shenzhou” aren’t using 60’s era computers. I think Mr. Kelly went a little too far to make his point. One of those layered questions that still remains to be answered is, though some would argue that it has already been answered, will China be an international exploration partner for the moon and Mars going forward? Or go it alone?
Marc’s update: Paul Spudis offers a counterpoint. While I don’t agree with all of Paul’s points he does offer some thoughts worth considering.
“It appears Kelly wants us to reach out and cooperate with the Chinese in space, even though they have not shown any particular desire for such a path. Kelly, the geopolitical sophisticate, seems to think that we should woo China with promises of space cooperation, like we won the hearts of the Russians. Yes, the Soviets were our one-time rivals, but I seem to recall that aside from one public relations “détente” mission in the 1970s (Apollo-Soyuz), real cooperation with Russia in space began after the fall of communism there in the early 1990s.”
That is a crazy article.
“don’t get too concerned that the Chinese have their own system to launch an astronaut crew to space and the U.S. does not.” Hello? If the US was launching astronauts into space (instead of asking for a ride) and the Chinese weren’t, I’m sure Kelly would use that as proof that we are more advanced.
“Their flight is not to some sprawling orbiting laboratory like the ISS.” Sprawling doesn’t necessarily mean good. Worse, the cost to build, now maintain, and eventually de-orbit ISS is huge. There has certainly be a lot of debate over whether it is worth the cost and whether it is holding us back (Remember Griffin wanted to de-orbit ISS in 2016 to free up funds for Constellation)
“they’re piggybacking on decades of engineering experience to skip the kinds of problems the space pioneer nations of Russia and the U.S. had to solve from scratch.” Don’t forget much of our early rocket program, including major parts of Apollo came from German rocket scientists such as Wernher von Braun.
Regarding technology, China manufactures many/most of the personal computers, tablets, and smartphones sold today. China’s Lenovo is one of the top PC makers in the world. Chinese telecom companies such as Huawei and ZTE are going head-to-head with telecom companies from US and Europe. China’s Tihane-2 is one of the world’s top supercomputers.
Chinese students kick US butt in international tests like the Program for International Student Assessment, known as PISA.
The US military is very cognizant of China’s growing power. While the cyber attacks make most of the news, the Pentagon has decided to shift the bulk of its naval assets to Asia.
Downplaying China’s potential is crazy.
and much of the German rocket know-how came from Goddard! Don’t buy into the simplistic myth that it was all the Germans (less than 10% of the Peenumunde team came here) and there were two space programs in the 60’s – NASA’s and the USAF’s. One gave us the now extinct Saturn program – a great if unsustainable government led effort. The Air Force program, led by General Schriever (yes, with some German involvement) gave us the Atlas, and Titan programs that flew for years after Saturn; in fact, a descendant of the Atlas still flies today. And before the subsidized French and Russians ate their lunch, they launched a fair number of commercial satellites as well – something the ginormous Saturns never could.
Folks:
I’ve noticed that the Chinese live videos during this mission were solid as a rock. The POV launch scenes were excellent. If this is any indication of the level of their technology, then +1.
Making the configuration of their spacecraft emulate Soyuz could only be said to be ‘conservative’, no archaic. It may look like a Soyuz/Salyut docked together, but it ain’t.
Also, the Chinese launch vehicles may be using hypergolic fuels (hydrazine) now but they’ll be flying RP-1/O2 launchers before long. They don’t feel constrained (or bullied) into making a super-heavy lift launch vehicle so they’ll settle for something that can launch 50 or 60 tons per and fly often.
So, you might want to think twice about who’s ahead or behind and who will be where in the future.
tinker
I’ve often found that when you encounter someone trying to convince people to outright dismiss an idea, as Mr. Kelly is here, it’s because they’re actually concerned that what they’re dismissing has a good chance of coming to pass. His closing plea for collaboration would seem to me to suggest this as well, since it would eliminate the possibility and we’d never know the answer. Just a suspicion on my part, though.
If, at some point, the Chinese should pull ahead in the non-existent space race, I don’t think it can be taken as a failure on the part of the other space nations; the Chinese will simply have earned it through hard work, a willingness to spend the money, the benefit of other country’s experience, and a genuine desire on the part of the decision makers.
Aesop’s Tales. The tortoise and the hare.
The Chinese tortoise lapped the hare. The US hare’s babies have woken up from their nap. They have run around the stadium and are now joining the manned marathon.
NASA once had great capabilities and the US was second to none. It was indisputable. Now we are living on time and capabilities borrowed from an earlier era. As the Constellation debacle has shown, the NASA expertise of that earlier era is long gone now.The Chinese started late but they have bought and copied US and Russian technologies and with their wealth and drive they will continue to expand their capabilities. Call a spade a spade-the US has become a third world space power without even the capability to put a man in space. At least the commercials, Space X and the others are learning how to do the job. NASA is in trouble owing more to a lack of leadership than anything.
“Call a spade a spade-the US has become a third world space power without even the capability to put a man in space.”
That’s like saying a driver who pulls into the pits in an Indy race no longer has the capability to drive. Only temporarily, while his car is being upgraded.
For the long run, the U.S. is doing exactly the right thing: retiring the shuttle and developing several next-generation human launch vehicles. It’s short-sighted to panic about the downtime during the transition.
Pulling into a pit stop is a laugh. That assumes you have the same car and are freshening it up a bit. NASA threw shutttle and most of its expertise away and is now going back to A Model T approach, but so far even that capability is a decade or longer away. I predict those new astronauts will have longer to wait than any before them before they fly a NASA vehicle.
Hey John
Ever consider that they may be smarter than us and have decided that a large vehicle like this with massive overhead and low flight rates is a stupid idea.
What’s amazing is what is not noticed here – first, they only launch every 2 or 3 years – it’s hard to advance rapidly at anything unless you do it often – no offense SLS advocates. Next, given that per capita GDP in China is like $3500, its a demonstration of the importance they place on this activity. US GDP is about fifteen times higher and some debate whether we can afford space!
Last point: no matter how far behind they are, we could benefit ourselves and the world by cooperating together in space. The fact that we were able to cooperate with the Soviets when we had thousands of nukes and lots of bellicose rhetoric pointed at each other but now we can’t because some members of Congress have a burr under their saddle is stupid.
“no matter how far behind they are, we could benefit ourselves and the world by cooperating together in space.”
Unfortunately, the relationship between “cooperation” and “benefits” are not entirely clear. Certainly the greatest advancements the US made in HSF was when we were competing with, not cooperating with, the Soviets/Russians.
And historically in markets where there is a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly, advancement and innovation grinds to a halt.
Cooperation should be approached with eyes wide open.
Eyes should definitely be wide open – but recognize this is not a market proposition – its an international program. How we structure our contribution – oligopoly, monopoly, whatever is up to us. Canada could never compete with us – but as a cooperative partner, they have done great work on space telerobotics and we have avoided the huge cost of developing DEXTRE (and got Commander Hatfield to boot – what’s not to like, eh?)
So far, having the Russians, ESA and Japan has benefited us handsomely; how would we have gotten to ISS after Columbia was lost? How would have been able to retire Shuttle and repurpose the money to exploration and commercial crew & cargo without the ATV and HTV support?
Sure, we went to the moon in a decade with a ton of unsustainable money in the 60’s – but over the last 30 years, we’ve sent hundreds of people into space, built a football field sized space station and had a 24/7 presence in space for over a decade with an essentially flat NASA budget – which model was more sustainable and which has laid the groundwork for moving further?
we are years behind us too…
R1234:
Hear, hear! In terms of government programs you are absolutely right. Government policy is not geared towards advancement and innovation, sad to say.
Yet, innovation ain’t dead yet. In the private sector, two cases come to mind: SpaceX and Sierra Nevada Corp. SpaceX, of course, makes medium class launch vehicles and spacecraft and Sierra Nevada is building a lifting body spacecraft called Dream Chaser.
The real part that worked for both of them was the access NASA gave both companies through Space Act Agreements and milestone based development contracts. These gave the companies NASA expertise and facilities (often at a price) as well as seed money (matched dollar per dollar by the companies) that effectively accelerated development time. Without NASA’s help, Elon Musk says the SpaceX would have failed.
Both of these companies are building and hiring in America using American designs. SpaceX’s Merlin engine was based on NASA designs and Dream Chaser’s airframe is a NASA design from the 90’s called the HL-20.
Meanwhile, Orion is probably going to have a European ATV’s service module. LockMart and Orbital Sciences both rely on imported engines for their launch vehicles.
Keep what works, trash what’s left.
tinker
Just to be complete, the HL-20 was based on a Russian design actually test flown (unmanned) several times, the BOR-4.
NASA had such designs and test dating back to the early 1960’s. Astronautix.com is in error.
Are those laurels comfortable enough to rest on?
I wouldn’t go partnering with China unless they did not have the same rules for the “partnerships” they operate in Mainland China, the state owns all intellectual property and patents of the partnering entity, in China they are allowed to make as many knockoffs of what ever they like and sell them internally in China. If you expand that philosophy to space, they will own everything they touch. Politicians in China make Billions yes that billions with a B, it might be nice to trade with them on earth, but I don’t know that I want to pay a Chinese tax for spaceflight should I ever want to get out of here towards mars. Realistically we need to get some of our electronics manufacturing back inside the US in US business proprietary control, and end this cycle of giving up all IP to Asia.
The US and China will be the world’s superpowers for the next generation. Our countries have different goals, but many common interests, most notably avoiding a potential nuclear conflict. If we and China can establish a productive working relationship, building trust and understanding, resolving differences through dialog rather than brinksmanship, the benefits to both sides will be incalculable. Working together on the ISS would be a meaningful step toward such a future.
Right now people within the US space program are often unfamiliar with Chinese capabilities and accomplishments, and do not understand Chinese goals. The Chinese program in human spaceflight is highly pragmatic. It currently has the goals of building national pride among the Chinese domestic audience, respect for China’s industrial and aerospace capabilities among potential customers, and (ultimately) building ties with other countries that help to ensure China’s long-term stability and economic growth.
These goals require that China launch often enough to remind people of their capabilities and make significant progress. They do not require that China participate in a new space race with the US, indeed a space race would serve no useful purpose for China. If the Chinese lost, they would look incompetent; if they won, they would irritate their biggest customer.
As to whether China is behind, or is simply copying US or Russian technology, a close look at the Chinese launch site at Jiuquan or at the plans for the new site on Hainan Island demonstrate that although the Shenzou configuration and the emergency pressure suit were originally derived from the Soyuz, today virtually every component and system is of Chinese design and manufacture and a significant improvement upon the Russian predecessors. The Chinese launch vehicles, EVA suit, and the entire ground processing system are unique and offer some ingenious ideas for the west to consider. And finally, although they do not launch often, they have gone from their first manned flight to both automated and manual docking of multiperson capsules with a space station, long-duration flights and EVA in only six manned flights.
“They are approaching the development of a space faring capability logically and incrementally. China’s technical and architectural choices appear sound.“
I think that these statements from Paul Spudis’ blog capture the major difference between the US and Chinese space programs, and clearly indicate the one reason why we should be concerned about being left behind, race or no race.
Whereas the US space program seems to change direction, sometimes radically, on a regular basis, and includes major programs that don’t appear to be connected to any overall plan (like SLS), the Chinese program is clearly a set of predetermined steps which build on one another towards a defined set of goals.
The reason for the difference is undeniably differences in the respective political systems. As much as we are quick to reject theirs, we in all honesty have to admit that in this case their system works better for them than western democracies do for us. Their space program progresses incrementally while ours seems to have lost both anchor and rudder.
While I don’t necessarily agree with all of Paul’s blog, he appears to me to have a much more realistic picture of the situation than Mr. Kelly presents.
Given enough funding I’m sure that will change in less than a decade. Which the Chinese Government plans to do.
I’m more than willing to consider partnering with the Chinese in space for specific missions. But let’s not kid ourselves about who were dealing with. They have an economic system that is closer to National Socialism than it is to Yankee Capitalism. They are extremely nationalistic in their politics; and basically Confucian in the philosophical orientation. I suggest some of the people on the site step back from their computers and open a history book. Take a look at what these people were doing to their own citizens at the same time Madison was writing letters on the separation of powers. If you don’t like history, I might suggest current events. Go talk to their neighbors on the Pacific rim such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, and Nationalist China before you become blasé about letting these people obtain the”high ground”. I suggest you examine how they use their dominance in rare earth metals for geo-political advantage, and consider the impact that their exclusivity to lunar resources would have upon life here on earth in the future. I lament with everybody on this website the lack of enthusiasm on both sides of the aisle of our political class for the exploration and development of our resources in space technology. I guarantee you these people have a long-term plan for their space exploration program; but for the life of me I can’t divine the coherent strategy for ours. That’s trouble.