China as a New ISS Partner? (Update)
Some space station partners appear ready to welcome China into the group, CP
“Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European body, said he hopes the International Space Station partnership would be open, adding it would benefit from co-operation with China. “I am in favour of seeing how we can work together with China,” he told reporters after the meeting in Quebec City. “It will take some steps, but it will come, I am sure. “This is not a closed partnership, it is an open partnership and anyone who can help support this partnership is more than welcome.” … Bolden has told The Canadian Press that NASA is an organization that looks at international co-operation, but it’s prohibited by Congressional action from any bilateral activities with China.”
Letter From Rep. Wolf to NASA Administrator Bolden Regarding China and the ISS
“As chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA – and the author of the statute banning bilateral cooperation with the Chinese – I believe that any effort to involve the Chinese in the space program would be misguided, and not in our national interest. The U.S. has no business cooperating with the PLA to help develop its space program.”
Hmm, the U.S. can’t work with China, but other countries can work with China. And those other countries have a stake in the International Space Station. Hmm.
To add a little more information to this discussion I would add that Russia and Canada also have few issues with working with China. However you won’t see China joining the ISS any time soon. There’s no political consensus in the U.S. for that to happen.
What you might see at some point down the road is a Chinese visit to the ISS somewhere between 2015 and 2020.
So would that visit be controlled out of Houston or Russia? Dock on a Russian port? Would someone in Congress mandate tape goes up to designate the border between the U.S. parts of the station and everywhere else?
No, it would have to have buy in from all the partners.
Its time for the US to end its extremely expensive, $3 billion a year, participation in the ISS program by the end of 2013 so that NASA can use those substantial resources to move forward with a lunar outpost program and a new generation of larger and cheaper American made space stations launched by the SLS.
Private American commercial launch companies can deploy specialized microgravity space factories for private industry through Bigelow Aerospace– if private industry is finally interested in financing such things for potential profits.
NASA also needs to get serious about deploying large rotating space stations that produce artificial gravity. We need confirmation that the human body can really adjust to such simulated gravity environments. We also need to test how low simulated gravity can be before it becomes deleterious to human health. Its shocking that after 50 years of humans traveling into space, we still don’t know these things!
Marcel F. Williams
Yes, when Gingrich or Tyson become president, NASA will have all the money it wants (well, at least twice its current budget) for these things, and so much more.
Hate to tell you this, but it’s hard to stop the Texas Congressional delegation and that’s who you would have to go through to shut down ISS. Well, that and the fact the international space community wouldn’t want to do business with us for the next decade.
Doug,
I suspect that you’re being optimistic. It might well be several decades. If the other partnership countries didn’t lay down heavy consequences should the US jump ship, then they’d only be inviting the same thing to happen again in the future. And also, from here on in, the US doesn’t look like a major investor/contributor.
I wonder how the partnership agreement reads. If a partner opts out, do they still, in some manner, retain the components they contributed, or do they have to surrender those components to the partnership?
Steve
We’re still the leader in town, all inconsistencies aside.
Out of the four main instruments on Webb, one is all NASA, one is ESA, one is ESA/NASA, and one is Canadian.
The other side of the coin here is ESA has its own budget issues lurking in the background. Wildcard.
Doug,
And our Canadian space budget is basically little more than pocket change, unfortunately. Maybe China is the only county not having budget problems, but they do it by making their own rules.
Steve
George Bush was from Texas and he planned to shut down the Shuttle program and do the same for ISS after 2015 in order to provide more funding for the Constellation program. And Congress went along with it!
But this all seem to change when the Augustine Commission suddenly became a love fest for the ISS, with little or no love for returning to the Moon. And then President Obama endorsed similar sentiments.
Now there’s even talk of continuing the $3 billion a year ISS program up to 2028: that’s going to cost at least $48 billion for a space agency with extremely limited financial resources. That’s $48 billion not dedicated to returning to the Moon or sending humans to Mars.
Marcel F. Williams
Marcel,
Let’s not overlook the non-space aspects of the situation. The US too often acts unilaterally in defiance of treaties and agreements. At some point, there’s a line crossed and the consequences will be severe. When US defiance pertains to things like arms treaties and space activities they’re treading on that line. Your $48B could be peanuts compared to trade reprisals or potentially even a war if this keeps up. That might sound silly now, but these things can escalate mighty quickly. What’s a reasonable price tag for the safety of your nation?
Steve
A war over pulling out of ISS? Please.
The Russians would just take over and turn it into a resort hotel for the 1 percent.
Doug,
I said. “The US too often acts unilaterally in defiance of treaties and agreements” which I thought made it clear that I was suggesting that the cumulative effect of all the times that the US has reneged on an agreement (not just pulling out of the ISS) may well one day push things over the line. And you can add to that the number of times that the US declined to sign treaties when the other countries were willing and/or did on things like environmental issues.
A country, like an individual, can only act in selfish defiance of the common good for so long, and then the consequences inevitably start. (In particular, non-Americans are still stinging from the Bush Jr. reign.) I think (I hope) that economic sanctions would be the first step. That gives the offender a chance to clue in and change their ways. History shows that the defiant eventually get cut down to size. Political and economic reprisals are like traffic accidents — they don’t just happen to other people.
As for a resort hotel, I think they would have to add a lot of new structure considering that what’s up there now is mighty cramped and vulnerable.
Steve
Russians have already flown tourists to ISS. If they got a hold of the whole thing, they could jack up rates on anyone running experiments and if researchers didn’t pay, toss the racks out of the airlock.
Business case would be interesting to look at for higher flight rates of Soyuz and follow-on Russian vehicles.
ISS gives us clock time on orbit with large structures and materials, plus a platform to run experiments for advanced technologies.
And again, you’re stuck with ISS unless you remove the city of Houston from the map.
I firmly believe that the US would have Marcel’s large rotating stations (and spacecraft) by this time if we had just had an educated Congress that exercised forethought. Kubrick was right and little of what he forecast was impossible for the early 21st century, but the electorate has, for at least 40 years, chosen to be led by unimaginative, backward, small minded individuals, both in the executive and Congress.
If all you have is a rear view mirror, it’s impossible to see the future.
“if we had just had an educated Congress that exercised forethought…”
“but the electorate has, for at least 40 years, chosen to be led by unimaginative, backward, small minded individuals, both in the executive and Congress.”
Old,
I agree, but there’s a catch: where do you find imaginative, forward-looking, broad-minded individuals willing to run for election or be appointed as necessary? Anybody with those characteristics and the necessary intelligence and experience is, in general, probably way too smart to be interested in the job (and those with “good intentions” can be the least capable of all).
And, based on experience to date, trying to educate Congress, I believe, will turn out to be just one more way to bang your head against the wall. There are two problems that I see. First is that most of the electorate in the western countries can enjoy a satisfactory quality of life without expending the time and energy necessary to learn enough to make an informed decision at election time. The second problem I see is that, once elected, a politician’s goals will shift, in large part, to things other than what he/she campaigned about. It seems to me that, these days, a party platform is just purely an election tool, which largely goes out the window once a candidate is elected. The scope of the problem of trying to educate Congress is larger than the sum of the two problems.
Even the rear-view mirror can be informative to those who bother to use it. Too many people see it as just a decorative embellishment, just like their turn signals.
Steve
You’re right. It’s a huge catch. And the way politics proceeds today, it almost selects for thick skinned incompetents. I doubt that any really sane person would want to run for office given the barrage of real and manufactured attacks he would face.
The issue with the electorate is that it is acceptable to hold ignorant or destructive views. This occurred with the introduction of deconstruction by both sides of the politcal spectrum. It’s what causes a Rush to think he can never go too far, when he goes too far.
So everyone can hold absurd beliefs and not be accountable to each other. In the 60’s when this would happen, friends, co-workers, family would intervene to “correct” absurdities.
The feeling was that by indulging absurdities, we’d somehow be “owned” by the Soviets or some other opponent – so if you held an extreme position, you’d better have a damn good reason and explain it well.
Now opinion is mere fashion. So we can’t sort out and combine good ideas and progress down a path. There’s even a cult of trying to kill the best ideas “in the cradle”, before they can undermine “the true way”.
We deconstructed common sense and replaced it with the desire of the mob.
As to China, where else do the international partners go when the US cries poverty?
This is shameful for the USA.
NASA’s flat budget and cutting of ExoMars opened that door.
Yes, those and SLS and JWST. We’ll pay a price in more than money for those two projects.
Swapping the US for China would be a good deal. At least they can put people in space. The rest of the world could have the International Space Station and the US could launch it’s own space station on SLS and call it the Unilateral Space Station, since that’s how we do things these days in the US.
However, I doubt if the Chinese can put a Shenzhou capsule in ISS orbit. They are at a similar latitude as KSC and the Shuttle had a 40% reduction in payload capacity to go to the 51.6-degree inclination of ISS.
nasa817,
You may well be right but, as a general principle, I wouldn’t count China’s eggs before they’re hatched.
Steve
Yes … Reminds one of the Aesop fable “The Ant and the
Grasshopper”. The ant (US of A) invested more than their fair share building
the ISS and now the grasshopper (China) will benefit without spending a nickel.
Sounds like a good deal to me … Right?
Grandpa Dave,
At the same time, if I had something in good shape that I wasn’t interested in using any more and somebody else was interested in using it and presumably investing the money to keep it in working order, I wouldn’t hesitate to give it away rather than see it wasted.
If the US isn’t interested in using the ISS anymore…
It would save the operational costs and apparently make lots of people happy who would rather see $3B/year spent on other things or not spent at all.
And it certainly wouldn’t hurt as a diplomatic jesture.
Steve
Grandpa Dave, At the same time, if I had something in good shape that I wasn’t interested in using any more and somebody else was interested in using it and presumably investing the money to keep it in working order, I wouldn’t hesitate to give it away rather than see it wasted. If the US isn’t interested in using the ISS anymore… It would save the operational costs and apparently make lots of people happy who would rather see $3B/year spent on other things or not spent at all. And it certainly wouldn’t hurt as a diplomatic gesture. Does that sound like an unusual move? Maybe something unusual is just what we need to break the tension right now, when there are too many antagonistic, anti-China comments in the media. Steve
I give up. This Disqus editor is screwier than ever.
Steve
Well,
I think that Disqus editor works for Donald Trump and is anti-China. Anyhow,
there are two versions to Aesop fable as you probably know. In the original the
Grasshopper dies. In today’s version the Grasshopper survives with the
governments help and the ant is tossed to the wolves … China is laughing all
the way to the bank since they pretty much own the USA’s note … Right … Wrong
… Tongue-in-Cheek?
Huh? “Disqus editor” is a robot.
KSC is at 28.5 degrees. Jiuquan is at 41 degrees, considerably closer to the ISS inclination. The Long March 2F should have ample reserve for the ISS orbit.
Well with the rocket(read missile) guidance tech that Loral Space gave China,and with their hacking of our computers that don’t get stolen or misplaced…They have everything they need.
As my Chinese friend says, China has indeed gotten a vast amount of useful technology from US companies, but it hasn’t been by hacking. It’s been because the rich Americans who run HP, IBM, GE, Motorola, GM, and even Walmart are racing each other to transfer virtually all their manufacturing and even R&D to China in order to cut costs by a few percent and thus boost profits to their rich stockholders. Obviously this will damage the US economy, perhaps irreparably, but so what? To Walmart, China isn’t just a supplier, it is where most of its future growth will be. These companies are not simply buying from China, they are in the process of becoming Chinese companies. If you object, better call these companies and complain.
In comparison, the tech transfer in the ISS program is trivial and the potential geopolitical benefits are substantial. The relationship between the US and China will be a fundamental determinate of world stability for the next century.
… are racing each other to transfer virtually all their manufacturing and even R&D to China …
This is an idiotic trend from the financial analysts, attempting to sell another business trend. The idea is to maximum leverage China by rushing everything their, imagining that they’ll beat rivals in out exploiting China (in the vein of Apple forcing iPhone redo’s through slave labor).
It isn’t nuanced, it is panicked and no one does the financial analysis, because … they don’t want to find out it may be wrong. As it has been in many cases.
China works in certain ways very well. Others not so well. Don’t blame China for this, it is American business using it as a “fashion statement”.
And the bottom is about to fall out of this overstatement – and there will be consequences galore.
All the sides here have some real issues. None are being confronted. That is why it isn’t changing. Nothing else.
Everyone should look at the agreements China needs to sign. Then they’d understand what is at stake.
How did this become the fault of financial analysts? All they do is analyze financial statements. See http://www.cfainstitute.org
They manufacture theorys of analytics to generate interest/need for their services.
Far from being disinterested or dispassionate about numbers – they need to make firms anxious about “falling behind” and hearing “how to catch up”.
Long history of burst “business theorys”.
Why not? They already hacked NASA’s computers and stole the control codes to the ISS. May as well invite them in before the send it spinning out of control.
Unfortunately a substantial part of NASA middle management is basically delusional and think this is still the Sixties, at least in the distorted way they remember it. They think Mitt or Rick will suddenly “see the light” give them $500B to race the Chicoms to the moon in some sort of Apollo, the Sequel. They don’t see any connection between the tax cuts they demand and the lack of money for STS/Orion. They hate Obama so bitterly that they instinctively believe anything he proposes must serve some secret devious purpose.
Time to get real. China is as capitalist as we are, and within a decade China’s GDP will exceed that of the US. The ISS is short on access and short on cash. It needs a new partner with deep pockets and big rockets, and the Shenzou is so far more reliable than the Soyuz. The real rivalry between us is in manufacturing and exports, not in the obsolescent technology of the ISS. The most important thing we can do for world stability is to build trust and understanding between our countries, and hopefully avoid a new cold war.
The big issue about China and the ISS is the cultural reason for participation as it directly addresses the history and yearnings of the Chinese people – nothing else matters in the decision.
The rest is for the diplomats and the bureaucrats to rationalize.
I would say the cultural reason is that China wants to “join the club” of world leaders, not to bury the US as Khruschev once threatened. To China, the US is an economic competitor, but also their best customer. We have differences, but if these cannot be settled peacefully both sides will suffer. Consequently for China being invited to join the ISS program is much more desirable than building their own station or racing the US to the moon.
China wants to “join the club” of world leaders,
They think they already did – that they were one of the first world leaders, thousands of years ago. Never mind some few hundred year slips – minor distractions.
What I was referring to was destiny as a nation, and how that is rooted in the cultural identity of the Chinese people, or more specifically the Han.
Unlike other countries, China is driven not so much by ambitions but by self-identity. Thousands of years of family genes and meanings, so its the context of what this means to being Chinese that matters … and they are concerned about it, so that apart from the entry card of HSF that they are currently working on, the nature of how the story of Chinese space exploration enhances this … is itself being explored.
So, unlike the 70’s where after the “space race” had been won, many Americans didn’t get the point for continuing it … because the cultural involvement was too narrow … by its nature, China could be very different.
But, to be balanced, they are a more stubborn people who are often hard to convince of such large challenges, because loss of face at a large scale can have greater consequences. Americans, by and large, routinely slough off large scale failures and try again without much fear of long term consequences.
This was what I was hinting at. They tend to get hung up more on what I call arsenal system dilemmas, and can’t stomach the Apples/SpaceX/<other> “wild men”.
Americans seem to be seen more as cowboys to them.
I agree with your characterization of the Han as being driven by a unitary cultural identity, and a desire for stability that makes it difficult to understand our concept of individual rights.
But despite China’s ancient history and modern power, many modern Chinese are politically insecure. They remember more than a century of foreign occupation, first by the western powers and then by Japan, and almost unimaginable indignities and atrocities that they were powerless to stop. I tend to believe that they are more interested in what human spaceflight says about their status in the world than in physically traveling off the world.
The main reason China isn’t involved in ISS is their anti-satellite test where they littered LEO with the trash from their old weather satellite. Prior to that, it was thought by some that NASA was going to begin working with China to be an ISS partner.
It was the US ASAT test that sent a piece of debris near the ISS.
“Consequently for China being invited to join the ISS program is much more desirable than building their own station or racing the US to the moon.”
Much more desirable to whom? NASA? The US in general? China? Long term space development?
IMO, having multiple players pursuing multiple paths is preferable to shoe-horning everyone into a single international program. International competition is not the same as war, nor will it inevitably lead to war.
> They think Mitt or Rick will suddenly “see the light” give them $500B
This delusional thinking has beeen going on for years, I read the ***same*** discussions from space fans since the 70s (difference nowadays is better graphics), actually Reagan did give $500B but it was not to NASA.
> They hate Obama so bitterly that they instinctively believe
> anything he proposes must serve some secret devious purpose.
There’s a number of NasaWatch readers who think the same (take a look at some of the posts). I think major problem is all presidents, senators, congressmen are lawyers/businessmen and such people have little interest in techie stuff (unless lotsa $$$ involved). Try engaging in interesting discussions with a lawyer about techie stuff, not the same as engaging in dicussions with people you find at AIAA, IEEE, ASME, etc.
> Time to get real. China is as capitalist as we are
Well since we exported much of our engineering and industrial base to China, may as well bring them in on ISS.
It will be several years before China is able to send a spacecraft to the ISS, they may get a flight in before it is deorbited. So the Chinese may be more interested in working on ISS2, possibly in a different orbit.
edit: spelling
They could dock a Shenzhou at the ISS tomorrow if they were allowed to. Shenzhou was designed with the APAS docking system…
.When we think about the first tentative human steps we take away from our planet, our terror of the unknown dangers awaiting us is only as limitless as our imaginations. However, that same boundless human imagination provides the courage to push us forward with a sense of wonder and curiosity…pushing us ever forward against our fears. Human imagination; Propelling us much as when the first early Asian and European explorer’s of the Old World ventured forth into the New World. It provides the means to fulfill our need to expand our knowledge, explore uncharted territories and extend the existence of the human race far beyond our common home.
But, unlike those long ago explorers, we must endeavor to leave our Old World conflicts and differences behind us as we set out discovering New Worlds. Otherwise, we are doomed as a species; failing to grow to our true potentials, endlessly squabbling amongst ourselves and ultimately, struggling for our very own survival.Space exploration is a monumental task that will require all of us together, not apart as individual nations serving our own nationalistic self-interests.
The sole issue here is that the Chinese space program is part of the People’s Liberation Army. If they separated it as a civilian program like the US and Russia do, there would be no problem.
Absolutely correct – their program is run by PLA and with the enormous growth in China’s military budget people are wary. Not just in the US either; Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and others in SE Asia wonder about their intentions. So should we, especially if they get the kind of veto over US ISS ops Russia tried to pull vs. Dragon.
The Russian program was run by the military as well, and still the two are quite close. Both of these are unsurprising, as anything in aerospace engineering is almost identical to weapons systems in the first place. Part of the reason we have ITAR to begin with.
Continuing this, the reason for the Ariane is also as a means to maintain/advance weapons systems for Europe, and the same is true for all other major launch systems worldwide.
This is why the agreements for international partnerships in space are written the way they are.
This has been an interesting thread. To keep it going I’ve created a post for it in the new SpaceRef Forum http://srs.gs/17nU.