Does America Still Want to Lead in Space? China Sure Does.
Is the US Yielding Spaceflight Leadership to China?, Op-Ed, Leroy Chiao, Space.com
“China is inviting international partners to work with them on their space station. They want international research, and they want to fly international astronauts. Many of the United States’ ISS partners (at least eight space agencies have talked to the Chinese about partnering and cooperation) are finding a more attractive alternative with China, or at least hedging their bets. Who can blame them? Working with China would be much less expensive than continuing with ISS. This sets up the perfect baton pass. America, already on the decline after the retirement of the space shuttle (now only Russia and China can launch astronauts into space), will on the way down hand over the leadership position of human spaceflight to the Chinese.”
Earlier posts on China
(big dramatic sigh) I have to agree, china’s new space station that is going to be operational in 2020 is soaring ahead of the U.S.. We will only have been living on a spacestation continually for almost 2 DECADES when they get their first station .. but .. you know those chinese.. soaring past us.
Just think in only two more chinese human crew launches and they will have already lofted more people into LEO in 12 years then what the US launched on two space shuttle filghts.
They have probes now circling every planet in the solar system plus the sun and they giant space telescopes have been the envy of the entire planet.
Plus the United states will most likely only have three domestic human spaceflight companies with the ability to launch 21 people at a time into LEO while the Chinese soar past us with their mini soyze…
Well, this is a ‘what have you done for us lately?’ media and society. I think a more appropriate relay race metaphor should be NASA is passing the baton to commercial space.
Precisely. The correct response to China’s growing space program is to point out that American private companies are now doing this while other countries are still requiring their governments to get where we were 30 years ago. Now, when they roll out their own space plane and launch a manned flight into BEO, that’ll be another story… and underscores why we really need to support private spaceflight.
Excellent point. The U.S. has umpteen aerospace companies that are making their own independent paths to space. They should be counted. Are there any companies in China that are independent of the government’s space effort as we have in the U.S.?
Yes, we have done all that. But what will we do now? At currently envisioned funding levels, not much of anything. Other than continuing to lead the consortium of space agencies supporting the ISS, which is aging.
Congress doesn’t want us working with the Chinese and they likely will not want us working with our ISS partners who may now be working with the Chinese. So we are stagnating, no longer leading much of anything, while the Chinese slowly, and deliberately, forge ahead with their plans. We’re sitting on our hands.
I would not say all of Congress, it’s really just Frank Wolf. If the Democrats win a majority in the House (unlikely due to gerrymandering but still possible) the situation would change.
just one person can decide the fate of the space program, mind boggling isn’t it
Very well said. Equating purposeless LEO manned missions as the hallmark of space leadership is a narrow view of things.
The US has not given up on space flight. NASA simply dropped the baton.
Yes, NASA has been its own worst enemy at times: Challenger, Columbia and the farce that was Constellation. But U.S. politicians and the public haven’t really rallied behind NASA since Apollo. Nature abhors voids, which the Chinese may be the ones to fill way out there.
NASA didn’t drop the baton. We funded two successful new rocket development programs, Falcon-9 and Antares, which look like they will be significant improvements in low cost, high reliability launch, and are currently funding four new designs for human launch systems,
Its a good point. Musk was on the verge of going broke. If it wasn’t for NASA funding, the Falcon would be a historical note. This can be a strong argument for terminating SLS. NASA has supported development of an alternative rocket – the commercial Falcon series. It now turns out that the Falcon Heavy will fly years before SLS and at a cost per flight 1/4th that of SLS. NASA’s hedge investment has paid off and the conclusion is that SLS should be terminated in favor of the Falcon rockets. While development funds of SLS are lost, the short and long term benefits of Falcon are immediate cost savings, a flight ready system, and long term savings to American taxpayers. The competition, LMA, Boeing and others, will develop competitive alternatives and the price to orbit a pound of payload will be driven even lower.
That is picking the baton up again.
However commercial crew has slipped a year in just the past two years because Congress slashed the administration request for it in half to increase funding to SLS/Orion
Interesting timing of this op-ed is this article is the “Chinese Military Paper Criticizes Wolf For Anti-Chinese Position” noted in this article,
http://www.washingtontimes….
China’s original goal was not to compete with ISS, but to join it, not to dominate space but to show China had joined the club of the world’s leading nations. . When first GW Bush and then the inexplicably powerful Frank Wolf used exclusion from the _International_ SS program as a cheap insult to China, one of only two nations that can currently launch humans into space, the Chinese elected to create an international space station of their own. Who is “ahead” is immaterial. As some of our leaders have difficulty understanding, China has nothing to gain from a race to the moon or anywhere else in space, and has no reason to antagonize the US, its largest customer. What China has to gain is closer ties with every nation that participates with them in space.
The loss to the world is not just the scientific and logistical synergies that could have been achieved if _all_ the spacefaring nations collaborate, but the opportunity for the Station to act as a symbol of and catalyst for trust and cooperation between the two countries that will be the world’s superpowers for the coming generation. Apparently the US is more interested in scoring short-term political points than in achieving long-term stability.
Here is a needed reminder……China is a communist country run by a nasty group of men. Go ahead and trust them if you like.
CINO. Communist in name only. The last real Communist to lead China was Mao, and no one is looking back. China has had a combination of free-market and state capitalism since Deng. China has 100 billionaires, second only to the US, and the highest sustained rate of economic growth of any major nation. As for nasty, they have nothing on ALEC and the Koch brothers.
Did you know that the present Chinese government has more legitimacy and authority than any of the western state
try this link’
http://www.ted.com/talks/ma…
I am very dismissive of him when He first published his book.
Now I give him a little more credence
Had to go into netflix to watch the entirity as advertisements kept ending the video short.
Ted Talks: Capitalism Paradox season 1 episode 15
“…what will we do now? At currently envisioned funding levels, not much of anything.”
NASA and the US continue to spend more money on manned space than all the other countries in the world combined. But for some reason they need more to be able to accomplish anything?
If more funding could be devoted to commercial space more could be accomplished in space. The total budget won’t go up so something has to go.
China is “catching up” only on manned spaceflight. The U.S. unmanned spaceflight programs are still kick-ass. If anything, for unmanned programs the gap between the U.S. and China appears to be getting WIDER.
“The U.S. unmanned spaceflight programs are still kick-ass.”
That spectacular picture of Saturn from Cassini is a good example.
You guys do not know why China did not develop a heavy lift rocket.. They have the technical capability but because of circumstance that they do not .
Dr. Joan John-Freese the national security adviser from Naval War Collgeg at New Port Rhode Island said the China heavy lift rocket is 10 years away.
The Chinese did not develop a heavy lift rocket is because of the limitation of the rail gauge width.
The present Shenzhou rocktes use 3 meter booster rockets. The rockets were produced in Tianjin and it has to be carried to Jiuquan by rail and that was the width of the raid gauge. The Chinese have no choice but to build the launch facility deep inside their territory.
Now the now low latitude space port in WEnchang in the most southerly island of Hainan is online it will support the new LM 5 seriies of rockets with 5 meter.
The lifting power of that rocket is slight better than the Saturn V/1F
I do not expect you folks to know because your high profile so called national security adviser did not even know. She did not reply my email. I watched her interview with CNN, In fact this is lying when you did not get all the facts.
Just do that math, power is a function of the square of diameter, 3 meter square is 9, 5 squre is 25,
Tiangong is about 10 tonne, so 5 meter is 25 tonne
Simple, did she finish math in high school, I wonder
The CZ-5 has a maximum lift capacity of 25 metric tons to LEO, equal to the Delta IV Heavy. Impressive, but considerably lighter than the Saturn V, which could place over 100 metric tons in LEO. Which is of no practical importance because the Saturn was much more expensive, but those are the facts.
I am impressed with your knowledge of CZ 5 which is Changzhen meaning Long March in Chinese.””
The development of Chinese rocket systems is embryonic as any western countries, i.e. Soviets, US Japan or France
It is not as most posters said, blowing the dust off the old Soviet design. Did you know that the first Chinese successful attempt to launch a satellite named Dong Fong Hong, the east is red which had the total combined weight of all 4 predecessors successful attempt put together. Google it it is all there
If you are not confident, you dare not do it. The first US lob is a 5 lb grape fruit for a sub orbital flight.
The Chinese designers have the cost, as the most important design criteria. If you are not launching humans, the safety issue is not important. Now the Chinese will rely on the main workhorse, the Shenzhou, which is being mass produced in a massive facility in Tianjin.
They are not going to upgrade to 6 man or 9 man crew launch, The cost is exponential to the number of people. I think 3 is the optimum from cost versus safety issue standpoint
I don’t just read google. I read the China section at nasaspaceflight.com and the http://en.cmse.gov.cn/ english-language web pages and I talk to people from China. However the situation is more complex than you suggest. China has contemplated more advanced manned launch vehicles and has decided to stick with the Shenzou for the moment because of development costs, not because it represents the pinnacle of design. The Long March series has made impressive advances but has been the cause of at least one terrible tragedy as well, which was at least in part responsible for the loss of their access to the US launch services market. After decades they finally realized hypergolics were a dead end and are switching to kerosene-oxygen for the CZ-5 and up. If you want to understand a research and development program, understand its problems as well as its successes.
Finally I got to chat with someone who is up to speed with this kind of news report
If my guess is right, the kerosene-oxygen was used not because at earlier series is because it simply do not have the punching power for lift. China has the cryogenic third stage capability.already.
I think they have ICBM capabilities in 1981 using liquid fuel and now they have the solid fuel version with mobile capability.
That tragedy was caused by as I said before by a very sudden severe wind shear, not by design or manufacturing flaws. The Chinese are very meticulous in the approach in such complex system unlike their industrial el cheapo price dictated regime in manufacturing and quality control. I saw that scientist said that to Dr. John Lewis. Now Dr. Lewis is almost a permanent fixture in any Shenzhou launch giving live commentaries on China National TV, and I think you can watch it on CCTV America if I am not mistaken. I saw him 3 times before in the last few Shenzhou launches.
The moment they decide to build the new spaceport in Wenchang county in Hainan, they did come out with a rocket burnt test in a moment’s notice. Unlike what Dr. Joan Johnson Freese said, 10 years away.
I have been to Hainan island more than half a dozen times and Wenchang county, a couple of times. The famous Hainan Chicken is from Wenchang county.
I believe the space port will be operational in 2014 and the maiden voyage of CZ-5 will debut there. This spaceport will also launch the CZ 7, the cargo ferrying spacecraft to the yet to be build Chinese miniature space station. I may , incline to believe that they may use CZ -7 in the Tiangong 2 cargo ferry run.
They have decided too scrap the original Tiangong 2 and use it as the cargo vehicle and move Tiangong 3 to become Tiangong 2 which should have regenerative life support system and hopefully refueling features as well.
The ISS was launched without a regenerative system for first 10 years and that is why it was so prohibitively expensive to maintain a crew of 7. Ten years ago, to ferry 1 kg of water, it is 20grand US, now may be 60 grand.That was the time when Dennis Rodman oops, I meant Tito paid allegedly 20 mil for a 10 day trip in ISS, the first civilian to do so and Russo is strapped for cash. Now it is 65 mil
The results they got from Shenzhou 9 and 10 were so satisfactory, they may not be a Tiangong 3 and go straight away to launch the core module using CZ 5 for the first phase in the build up of the permanent space station.
The Chinese are very measured and methodical and exercise utmost prudence in this space approach where cost is the overriding concern.
I was once able to chat with a space enthusiast and he said those young NASA designers has to go the museum to see how the thrusters were arranged in the Apollo spacecraft.
IT was overly complex. Have you heard of the DF 21D anti ship missile that the Chinese have developed. when I saw the video clip as to how it is homing to its moving target , it was awesome
The normal rocket thruster like the one from Apollo will not cut it. They are using micro burn to guide the missile in its terminal phase. No rotating pivoting thrusters.like the one used in Apollo
The warhead is small but the supersonic momentum of the impact alone can do serious damage to the deck which will render the big flat top inoperational for strike aircrafts.
This missile is mach 10 capable and has an exospheric trajectory.
Once they missiles has its cross hair on a moving CVN, it will switch to mach 10. mode, the cruise phase is not mach 10. With that speed, a 30 knot is like a stationary target.
Then the CVN will devote some of their resources to look at the sky rather than horizontal and SM3 anti missile is not specifically design for skyward and mach 10 missile, love to see what Pentagon go to say.
The Jan 11 ASAT is a testament to that feat which is a world first with a kinetic kill. No country have done that yet.
US did an ASAT a year later by shooting down its own defunct satellite claiming the toxic fuel left is hazardous.
The world in general will not differentiate a kinetic kill as opposed to a proximity fuse warhead approach. An ASAT is an ASAT period. Only those in the business will know.
Now China has just launch 3 satellites in developing a satellite grabbing technique. Interesting to See how it goes
The other feat demonstrating the ultra fine thurster control is the Chang’e 2. The orbiter can achieve a perilune of just 9 miles above the lunar surface.
With that close shave manoeuvre, 1 millisecond extra burn may cause the orbit crashing down hard on the surface
With funding ($40M) an improved Gemini could be built and ready to launch in 18 months…what are we waiting for ? http://www.spaceoperationsinc.com
I wince when people use the term “space” when they really mean just the “human space” aspect.
Indeed. When some other agency has spacecraft exploring multiple planets, comets, asteroids, observing other galaxies, and identifying thousands of exoplanet candidates, then we’ll talk about them being the leader in “space”
HSF does not equal space exploration, but it’s about as complex as the general public can manage when gauging what NASA’s accomplishing. The metric “how many people in space? How deep in space are they?” is tangible to people on the street, while “how much have we expanded our understanding of the universe?” just isn’t exciting enough to them to care.
The American “space” program is much more than just NASA. It includes Air Force, NRO, commercial and the industrial base supporting these activities.
“space” is really just a domain, kind of like the ocean or air. It’s not the domain of space that’s important per se, but what you can do in/from space that provides value. And in my opinion, things like GPS, weather, missile warning, communications sats, science are far more important and more relevant to people, the economy, national security, prestige and inspiration than human space.
Leadership in “space” is not defined by flags, footprints, ör the size or complexity of a system. Space leadership is defined by the robustness of the countries ability to whatever it wants in space whenever it wants to do it. This implies a healthy and diverse industrial base, ie high flight rate.
The inspiration and spinoffs arguments for human space are weak compared to the opportunity cost of the many more productive alternatives that the nation could have spent with the hundreds of billions spent on human space since Apollo. (Apollo was good because it served a larger geopolitical objective….no human space program since can claim similar relevance).
I think it is a mistake to dismiss either China or the U.S. in human spaceflight. Although Chiao is careful to give the U.S. credit where due, he makes the carelessly dismissive statement “America, already on the decline after the retirement of the space shuttle (now only Russia and China can launch astronauts into space”. Using that standard someone in 1967 or in 1976 could have made the same statement about HSF being in decline in the U.S. If Chiao wants to assert that the U.S. is in decline in HSF he should make better arguments than that one.
On the flip side, Chiao makes several very good points about China. Anyone who dismisses China because of their currently limited achievements in HSF should think about Chiao’s insightful comment “China has launched only five crewed space missions, but each one accomplished specific objectives to further the nation’s capabilities”. This is something that the U.S. has not done in decades, as we are still waiting for the next incremental capability. To be fair, topping the Moon landings and even the Shuttle itself is no easy task. But we are all expecting U.S. human spaceflight to go farther and do even greater things. There are serious problems at the moment which should not be dismissed, but the current problems should not be used as a reason to dismiss the U.S. in human spaceflight. Right now the U.S. is struggling to reach its potential.
Meanwhile the Chinese don’t seem to be struggling, just patiently and methodically pressing forward, which is why they should not be dismissed either.
I agree. We’re not in decline. But China has deeper pockets than we do, and to challenge them to a duel would be pointless.
I wasn’t aware that anyone was advocating challenging China to a duel. Some people think we should work with China, some people think we should not. Some people are worried that China will take the lead in space if the U.S. fails to, and that includes Leroy Chiao who states “America can, and should, lead the international coalition to explore space” although he states “The problem is, it may already be too late”
Hopefully the space race with the Soviets will remain in history as the only such duel between spacefaring nations. It may produce some exciting short term activity but long term it is unproductive. Cooperation is proving to be a much better long term strategy.
I agree. Which is why I believe we should cooperate with China.
China has to invest to maintain ~8% GDP growth needed to keep over a billion Chinese happy. Would be nice if our government would invest enough to get us back to ~4% GDP growth.
1. national pride, important in a country that still bears deep insecurities from its impotence during over a century of foriegn occupation, first by the European powers and then by Japan
2. recognition as a world leader
3. marketing of Chinese technology
4. closer ties with countries in Europe and elsewhere interested in spaceflight that may find it easier to fly with China than with the US
5. the ability to say “eat my dust” to Frank Wolf and his cronies who froze them out of the “International” space station program.
Countdown to Wolf paranoid explosion in 5… 4…. 3…
I read so many comments about Space X this and Space X that. Some said, Space X is ahead of China by sending a few missions up to ISS with lots of hiccups and glitches. The first, the rendezvous is messy, about 20 unplanned holds before the triumphant moment hail “we got the dragon by the tail by CanadARM 2. This is berthing, there is NO docking capabilities by Space X. The Chinese have achieved a world first space feat in Tiangon 1 and Shenzhou 8. That was an automatic rendezvous followed by an autonomous docking between un-manned spacecrafts,
No nation even till now as we speak, has done that. Russo still having problems with their docking with ISS and one craft i.e. ISS is permanently manned. The UiS LIDAR docking system with ISS is problematic till the retirement of the Shuttles.
The second Space X mission, one of the rockets failed to fire and the intended cargo satellite stuck in a use;less orbit. China only failed partially once in 65 consecutive launch success.
If Space can launch ONE person to ISS, then we can discuss if Space X is ahead.
I would like to know how much Space X charges per naut ride. Russo is charging $65mil per lob. China according to the mission cost, about $30 mil per taikonaut. Mind you the Shenzhou capsule is a mass produced item, and so is the launch rocket, the Divine Arrow, LM2.
The safety factor for astronauts and cosmonausts is an open ended costg equation. How do you decide that? China has about 4 foreign tracking stations and 7 domestic ones and with at least 3 ocean going tracking ships in Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Ocean to support the launch.
Now the Chinese have acquired a defunct formerly US tracking station in Dongara near Perth Australia to further enhance the safety issue
Do you think Space X can match that amount of safety support.
If the Russo had a tracking station, their Phobos Grunt MIssion could have been saved. The Russo were asking people in South America to see if the third stage has fired or not. The time window to upload the software patch ran out on them
How pathetic and Space X wanted to match a country with deep pockets
Comparing the space programs of China and SpaceX is a waste of time because they have completely different objectives. China’s program is one of national prestige, supporting military needs (just as NASA routinely supports USAF/NRO needs) and exploration. SpaceX’s is one of commercial gain and Musk’s personal goal to get to Mars before he’s too old to do so. Having these very different goals means they will focus their efforts on different capabilities, and are therefore not worth comparing.
As to cost, of course we won’t know a final number until they’re actually flying, but their publicly stated per-seat price is around $24M/seat assuming six passengers, or $20M/seat for the full seven passengers.
A couple corrections to factual errors in your comment..
The engine did not fail to fire, it experienced an anomaly during flight which triggered a shutoff. Since the rocket was designed to deal with loss of an engine, it simply burned the remaining engines a little longer to compensate. While nobody wants to lose an engine like that, it actually turned out to be a pretty solid demonstration that the capability works. Nobody else in the industry has this capability.
The second stage re-light that was needed to put the OrbComm satellite into the proper orbit was not executed because of NASA’s requirements about the safety margin that the secondary payload would not get too close to the station. NASA required a 99% confidence, SpaceX could only offer 95%. http://www.spaceflightnow.c…
OrbComm knew ahead of time that there was a high risk that the prototype satellite may not reach the desired oribt, and as such they paid a substantially discounted rate. Even with the lower orbit, however, OrbComm still collected enough data from the satellite that they did not choose to launch another prototype and have moved on to production. http://www.dailytech.com/Or…
(They even filed an insurance claim to write it off as a “total loss” while also being apparently satisfied with the data collected. Well played, OrbComm)
thanks for the info I am not an American, I rely on US media
China’s record of human spaceflight is indeed impressive, but they have been working on it since Project 714 was initiated in 1967. SpaceX has not yet launched a human crew but it is currently offering satellite launch services on the commercial market at a price that Chinese launch providers have so far been unable to match. This is also impressive.
It is not the Chinese launch providers were unable to match, it is because the Chinese prohibited to launch any satellites with any US components or design parts.
There is a moritorium imposed by the US. Now all the launch business went to India. India is the main benefactor no Space X. depending on the weight of the satellite. India is doing brisk business in satellite launch.
At this moment, the 3 man Shenzhou launch is about 100 million USD. so cost of each person is 33.mil
Once the Shenzhou space vehicle is being mass produced then you will see the price per naut ride to ISS will come down dramatically.
At the present, no country or entity is doing space engineering except China. Space X is doing space science, i.e. still tinkering with rocket systems.
The Shenzhou rockets are also being mass produced as well. Space X is all custom made with NO standard parts.
I suggest you check the data. India’s share of the market is inconsequential.
http://www.spacelaunchrepor…
Moreover, because of the degree of skilled labor required, there is not much of a decrease in manufacturing cost of spacecraft or launch vehicles even if they are made in large quantities. For the matter, what indication do you have of any substantial increase in production rate for the Shenzou spacecraft? The “Shenzou rocket” is the Chang Zheng 2F, which, like the Falcon, is manufactured with many specially fabricated parts.
I may not have the data to support I merely based on some experts in rockets in yahoo saying that the Falcon has too “much plumbing” and that is what I relied on, unreliable but good enough for me.
I read the report in Chinese that now, many of the rocket system adopt some standard parts. If you do not think manufacture in bigger quantities do not come down in cost I have to rest my case
For Shenzhou spacecraft (the twins of Soyuz), they can be mass produced, and I am pretty sure of that and sure enough recently I read it from an article that it is in fact the case. The mold itself suggest that it is the case.
I am an applied scientist and the moment I took a first look of the shape and the geometry of it, immediately that is what I would like to have, no sex appeal but it will be more reliable when I take a look at the Apollo crew craft and compared it to the dumb looking leaky kettle shape.
For too many fabricated parts for the Apollo craft.
The biggest fundamental design flaw in the Apollo is the CSM approach. /the chinese approach all the 3 parts are separate, the command part, the service and return craft are all separate for a much safer and reliable for reentry I think”
You may have a different opinion but you can stick to your own and I will stick to mine.
‘
DId you remember the Intelsat satellite by China which is approved by Clinton and the US claimed that the encryption chip was never recovered by the Chinese and they stole the technology.
Not too long ago, when Dr. John Lewis the Expert of interplanetry science from U of Arizona was at the CCTV International as a guest to give commentaries live on China national TV. The other Chinese guest was telling John that the Intelsat failure was due to a very sudden severe wind shear. It was not due to rocket failure. But I am sure the western media will not buy any story coming out of China. I was watching that live in China for the Shenzhou 7 launch.
Now you can see the Chinese space port has an well sealed retractable mechanism to protect the rockets up to the seconds before the ignition and the weather forecast at those times left alot to be desired.
The Chinese just wanted to be 200% sure. I am not sure Space X as a private entity can provide that kind of tracking for any human launch. ‘
I simply do not believe Space X can match China to that degree of safety assurance with what about 6 or 7 domestic tracking,stations, 4 foreign and 3 or 4 tracking ships
1. National pride is what we tell ourselves, not what we tell others. If you read the Chinese web pages on manned spaceflight you will see that most are in Chinese, designed to communicate with the domestic audience.
2. “A” world leader, not “the” world leader. Most countries that fly on the ISS are proud of the fact.
3. I do not mean products actually made in space. China is marketing commercial launch services and has plans to market commercial aircraft. The human spaceflight program demonstrates the level of technology and quality control required. Tang and Velcro were not invented by NASA.
4. Putin did not initiate cooperation with the US on ISS. The relationship with Putin turned cold because both Bush and Putin saw advantages in being adversarial. But the decision to work with Russia on the ISS had an enormous impact at the time, changing our national perspective and being a key factor in the reduction in the bilateral nuclear threat. China sees itself as extending a hand of friendship to Europe, Latin America and Asia. Germany in particular is already holding talks on participation with the Chinese in space.
China is not concealing its plans, but don’t assume they are as superficial as NASA sometimes is. China is playing the long game.