Everyone's Going Back To The Moon
China’s lunar first unlikely to kick off a new space race, Houston Chronicle
“Cowing said he will not be surprised to see a Chinese flag on the moon in coming years. “When they will do it, I’m not sure. Their resources are more constrained than ours but they are nothing if not relentless,” Cowing said. “I think there’s an excellent chance that if our goals start shifting toward the early 2030s, if we go back we’ll be waving at China saying, ‘Hi guys, we’re back.'” If that happens, he said it would make sense to partner with the Chinese on the lunar surface. “If you build a beach house next to someone else’s beach house, you’re both going to get worried when there’s a storm and you’re going to try to avoid the problems,” he said. “That’s the underlying theme in space, too.”
China lands Chang’e-4 probe on ‘dark’ side of moon, Deutsche Welle
“If we are as a species going to study the moon further, we need to go to the far side,” NASA Watch editor Keith Cowing told DW.”
Of course it might also make sense to partner in LEO.
Many here support much more cooperation with the Chinese in space. I agree, mostly as a starry-eyed lib.
But there is a darker side to cooperation with the Chinese Intellectual Property Vacuum Cleaner: they are in fact adversaries; they are fully aware of their own weaknesses; and they have demonstrated a systematic way of resolving their weaknesses that operates both legally and, alas, extra-legally.
I don’t know how to evaluate the continuing news reports of intense Chinese hacking; beyond wariness. But I am old enough that I can report on the breath of similar Japanese efforts over the decades of my own life. The Japanese started by producing plainly inferior, but dramatically cheaper, products; so much so that “Made in Japan” was the butt of countess jokes.
Through consistent diligence and copying the Japanese have created a technical mountain. How much of this mountain is papered with illegal activities is unknown. The Chinese are on a similar trajectory.
Continued cooperation may benefit us as well as them; but the Chinese have demonstrated they are not to be trusted. Nor do they shrink from economic blackmail – a lesson that Boeing is learning in a particularly stinging way.
I know right? I like this author and Clayton Anderson, and the folks here who advocate for cooperation with China in space. However, this article introduces and then fails to explore the reasons why. This shortfall in details makes it look like those who resist working with China are all just a bunch of selfish ding-dongs.
I agree with all of the reasons why we should…but when we started cooperating with Russia, it was a two-way street. Where is the exchange when it comes to China? They have Lagrange point com satellites for remote control of rovers on the farside, right? But that isn’t new technology, nor are they leaders in that technology. What tech do they have for us to steal?
I don’t think we got much in the way of technology from the Russians. It was mostly an exchange of goods and services (and money…) In the case of China and the Moon, Chang’e 4 has a planned lifetime of one year. It may do better, but the Queqiao relay satellite is likely to last _much_ longer. With no day/night cycles, it’s in a more benign environment.
It would be very convenient for US lunar missions to use it, if we want to land on the far side. It would also be very convenient for the CNSA to use our Deep Space Network. China is a big country, but for a good fraction of every day, their antennas can’t see the Moon. That would involve sharing telecommunications protocols. Ours are in the open literature already, but I’m not sure about theirs.
My understanding was that the Russian medical tech for long duration space flight was more advanced than ours…more up-to-date…due to Mir.
We’d need to hear from an expert, but my memory is that the Russians brought in very little “tech”, at least in the sense I’d use the word. Medical data, yes (maybe; I think some of the medical instrumentation on Mir wasn’t impressive.) Experience in things like how much and what sorts of exercise are optimal, yes. But I don’t think “tech” (unless you mean techniques not technology) was something they brought to the table.
Yeah, I don’t think now is the time for collaboration in space with China. With the trade war ongoing, Xi (even the Soviets didn’t have dictators for like after Stalin) reminding Taiwan that forceful reunification is very much on the table, and a PLA general recently advocating sinking two U.S. carriers it just isn’t the time. I am surprised that no one has questioned NASA’s support of mainland Chinese graduate students with their grants. I would much rather have the Chinese land on the moon (with appropriate patriotic/nationalistic celebrations!) than invade Taiwan but we have to live in the world as it is not in the one we would like it to be.
As far as grants are concerned, NASA is following the law as written, and they aren’t allowed to do anything else. US universities are allowed to admit Chinese nationals as graduate students, and professors are allowed to pay graduate students off their federal contracts and grants. In fact, US universities can hire Chinese nationals as professors, and those professors can propose to NASA for contracts and grants.
The prohibition is against working with (or funding) people in China or who receive funding from Chinese organizations. Of course, employing someone from China in a technical field involves lots of extra paperwork. In some cases, there’s almost a de facto ban on attending international conferences. Some student visas are good for one entry into the US and have to be renewed by the US embassy in a person’t home country. A Chinese student going to a conference in Austria (there is a big annual one in Vienna) and the student may have to go on to China before returning to school in the US.
I wasn’t suggesting that NASA was doing something illegal just maybe nonsensical. For example, you couldn’t directly fund the Shanghai Aircraft Factory with a NASA grant as you point out. I had a grant at a University that utilized a student who was employed at the Shanghai Aircraft Factory. Assuming there is a fair probability that he would return to the Shangai Aircraft Factory after he finished with the grant and his degree, I don’t see alot of difference in terms of tech transfer. Meanwhile, we were not permitted to review journal articles with mainland Chinese authors for fear that pointing out errors would be tech transfer. It was also interesting that while the University could use the student if they needed supercomputer access at Ames it could take over a year to get .
It’s probably nonsensical, but it isn’t NASA. That’s what I meant about NASA following the law. There are many, very general laws about non-discrimination, and NASA has to follow them. That includes not discriminating on the basis of nationality. All of the restrictions involving work with Chinese nationals are fairly narrow, specific exceptions to that. So outside those specific exceptions, NASA has to treat Chinese nationals just like anyone else.
In practice, that might not make sense. Your example of a NASA-funded student getting a PhD and then getting a job with Shangai Aircraft is a pretty big loophole when it comes to technology transfer. That means the laws are a patchwork which may not really accomplish much (other than consuming time, effort and money.) But NASA didn’t write those laws. It just has to follow _all_ of them, no matter much or little sense it makes.
There is a difference between discriminating against US citizens based on their previous nationality or country of origin (which NASA does not and should not do) and treating non US citizens with different nationalities. Ever try to get a foreign national onto a NASA facility for a meeting?
I worked on the Cassini project, so I know more than I’d like to about getting foreign nationals into NASA centers (primarily Europeans into JPL.)
But you’re missing my point. There are also laws against discriminating against foreign nationals. Specifically based on _which_ country they are citizens of. NASA can’t, for example, treat Nigerian citizens differently from Canadian citizens. There are specific exceptions covering specific issues. Outside that, the same rules apply to all foreign national.
Access to government facilities for nationals of listed countries is one exception, and China’s on the list. NASA collaborations with anyone working for a Chinese company or their government is another exception. Funding students is not an exception, as the laws are currently written. So NASA must apply the same rules apply to Chinese nationals as they do to citizens of countries we get along with.
“Chinese Intellectual Property Vacuum Cleaner”
Yes but many US companies were fully happy offshoring much of our technical abilities like manufacturing to China.
We’ve created a corporate monster that reports quarterly results and takes no responsibility for being able to operate in the Land of the Free.
Take the military out and turn it into a civilian agency .. how about their space program partner with our DOD .. and THEY open up about everything .. first..
I’m not sure what anyone can do about the economic blackmail. (And it doesn’t just affect Boeing. Travel and airline web pages have to be _very_ careful about how they market trips to Taipei. Several have had services in China cut off for phrasing which implied Taiwan isn’t part of the People’s Republic…) The usual mechanism to prevent that is international trade agreements and bodies like the World Trade Association. But our current President isn’t a fan of that sort of thing, and I get the impression China complies when they feel like it.
Technology transfer is both easier and harder. A direct exchange of services, like sharing antenna time or scientific data, shouldn’t be a problem. In principle, there shouldn’t be a problem with flying US instruments on Chinese, robotic missions, and vice versa. It would require a carefully written interface control document (ICD), but it’s possible to write one that is an effective firewall. It’s a pain, but it can be done.
Unfortunately, writing an ICD is always a negotiation between the people on either side of the interface. If one side does _not_ want an effective firewall, things get awkward. And enforcing it is even harder. Would the Department of State have to sign off in the ICD, and sign off again every time it’s revised? That would be a real pain, and I’m not even sure they have people competent to do so. Normally, their involvement in international projects is at a higher level.
Regrettably, according to one story on the Yutu 2 deployment:
“It’s a small step for the rover, but one giant leap for the Chinese nation,” Wu Weiren, the chief designer of the Lunar Exploration Project, told CCTV. “This giant leap is a decisive move for our exploration of space and the conquering of the universe.”
Not to restart the business about “colonization” and similar phrases, but…. Using the phrase “conquering of the universe” was an unfortunate choice of words. I know it’s just the sort of thing people do all the time when speaking a second language, but it is unfortunate.
Paul Spudis talked of “settlement”, a better turn of phrase unless, perhaps, your imagination is limited to First Nations territory.
Hmmm, South China Sea, Taiwan, Moon and “Universe”(?)
The US government will not prioritize a return to a permanent lunar base.
The Federal Government is broke financially, and broken politically. Operationally, it is teetering on a complete breakdown as well.
Free enterprise is where the future lies for lunar bases and ultimately colonization. Find a way to make a buck by placing humans permanently on the surface of our moon, and watch how fast businesses and humans arrive to take advantage of the oppportunity.
Provided Uncle Sam does not use it’s still existing draconian might to crush free enterprise efforts – there is nothing more threatening to a bureaucracy than a successful outsider – and, I absolutely believe this government is capable of stopping SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others – the colonization of our moon and the solar system can happen.
But, not a moment sooner. Not by the US government. NASA from a manned space enterprise perspective, is dead.
The sellout has been by US Universities. They actually send recruiters to Red China to find their best and brightest to come here and fill up university coffers with out of state tuition. Then, with new Doctorate in hand using the best US technology, many (most?) return to China. This is where the greater part of the IP theft is occurring.
They just don’t recruit from mainland China (although it is the largest source) but from other foreign countries too. I think that having a student whose visa or green card can be revoked creates an indentured servant situation that many professors are not willing to pass up. Sadly, many of these students are supported by U.S. taxpayer funded grants. I have yet to meet a professor who is actively trying to recruit U.S. citizens. The whole approach to U.S. technical education needs to be reformed.
In the space and planetary sciences, we very definitely recruit new graduate students from the promising undergraduates at American universities. Of course, some of those promising undergraduates are foreign nationals in the US on a student visa. But the people I know are hunting for talent not indentured servants.
But yes, many universities do like having foreign students. And students from different parts of the United States. For public universities, that’s a funding problem. State funding isn’t much and state laws or rules often limit tuition for local students. For example, at one point, the Universities of California were tuition-free for students from California. (Although they did get creative with “fees”.) For out-of-state and foreign students, all bets are off. So having out-of-state and foreign students is a practical way for a university to pay the bills.
Over 50 percent of technical graduate students non US natives (approaching 80 percent in comp sci and EE) and they are really diligently recruiting US citizens? It would be very interesting to see how the increase in the number of non US citizens in graduate technical programs compares to the increase of US women and minorities in those programs. I know it is anectodal, but a colleague of mine left his contractor position to pursue a doctorate at Princeton and was told by a very prominent professor there that his job was to educate the next generation of Chinese scientists and engineers! He didn’t stay to finish.
More than 50 percent of the graduate students working at my lab are US citizens. We do have a sizable number of foreign citizens as well, but not 50 percent. That’s basically an astronomy, physics and aerospace engineering institution.
As I said, I don’t know of anyone specifically recruiting students based on nationality, US or otherwise. Actually, that would violate university policies. (I’m sure of that, since we get to take the training course on things-they-fire-people-for every three years…)
People recruit students based on ability. At the undergraduate level, that’s hiring students who have already been admitted to the university; at the graduate level, it includes admitting students who have done undergraduate work for people in the field. That’s largely, but certainly not exclusively, undergraduates from US universities.