Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

U.S. Snubs China's Offer for Space Cooperation 75

Posted by timothy from the one-upmanship dept.
Devar writes "According to this space.com article The US has turned down China's offer for cooperation in space because their 'technology was not mature.' "Anticipating future space cooperation with the U.S., China fitted the Shenzhou craft with a docking ring capable of linking up with the International Space Station (ISS) and has at least one launch site, Jiuquan, located at near the same latitude as NASA's Cape Canaveral, which would allow similar launch profiles." This action has prompted China to turn to the ESA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Snubs China's Offer for Space Cooperation More

U.S. Snubs China's Offer for Space Cooperation

Comments Filter:

  • Why? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Dios ( 83038 )
    Is this the result of Bush Foreign Relations policy? NASA being 'big headed' or what? Why would we ever deny the chance for an up and coming nation to work with us?

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Giant Ape Skeleton ( 638834 )
      Probably because China would get all the benefit from sharing our superior technology, and we would get nothing in return.

      May as well just go with the status quo, where their spies just *steal* our tech!

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:13PM (#8999523) Homepage Journal
        *May as well just go with the status quo, where their spies just *steal* our tech!*

        huh? I thought usa sends it's technology to china to be manufactured willingly.

        • Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ckaminski ( 82854 )
          not things like high-precision laser ring gyros, terminal guidance avionics and rocket engine technology. Nope. No chance in hell of China, within the next 5 years, manufacturing something like the Space Shuttle SSME high pressure turbopump. Hell, Pratt & Witney can barely get it right and they've had 25 years of experience.

          To think the shuttle program hasn't had ONE in-flight SSME failure boggles my mind.

        • > I thought usa sends it's technology to china to be manufactured willingly.

          You're thinking of Clinton/Gore. You can't buy us with
          a few buddhist nuns in leather anymore, Mr. Riady.

          Now a few lines of blow and a sleek hooker in Hong Kong, OTOH...
      • Yeah, it's OK if we get technology from the commies [rosaviakosmos.ru], but we won't let the commies [cnsa.gov.cn] get technology from us!

      • Re:Why? (Score:2)

        by ces ( 119879 )
        Probably because China would get all the benefit from sharing our superior technology, and we would get nothing in return.

        I don't know the US would gain a backup to the creaky shuttles other than the Russians, someone else to help foot the ISS bill, etc.

        Also the Chinese are flying manned missions now unlike the US.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:54PM (#9000067)
      Simple enough. China wants Taiwan. The US views Taiwan as the hope of democracy for China, so we want Taiwan to stay de facto independent. We protect Taiwan using the Navy, so China can't invade without attacking US warships. China is developing missiles they can fire from the mainland to attack Taiwan. (This isn't WMD-ish speculation, China's admitted they're doing it.) This is actually one of the driving forces behind our "missile shield:" it's being built around Aegis cruisers because those are what we have defending Taiwan. This is 99% of the world's fear about us withdrawing from the ABM treaty, that it will, er, unbalance the balance of power in southeast Asia by rendering China's missiles worthless.

      You can probably see where this starts to tie in to NASA now. NASA works a lot with satellites and advanced guidance and propulsion systems for missiles, exactly the technology we don't want China to have. Well, it's a pipe dream to hope they'll never have it, but we need to stay just enough ahead of them for our missile shield to work (at least, work as well as it ever will).

      I applaud you (I'm being serious, not sarcastic) for asking, by the way. Far too many Slashdot posters are intellectually lazy and assume the easy answer is the right one: "Bush sucks at foreign relations, so this must be just another screwup." But you never learn anything unless you look deeper!

      Besides, this is the point now where we get into the really interesting stuff: whether the position is right, whether it will work the way it's supposed to, whether it's relevant... all that good stuff. It's much more fun than mindless bashing of an unpopular politician.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

        by a whoabot ( 706122 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:18PM (#9000308)
        China already has missle technology capable of launching various payloads* [nti.org] from the mainland to Taiwan: so what missles are you referring to exactly that they are "developing" of which they don't yet have? It says on that page that China can also launch missiles that can hit mainland United States.

        Another link that may be of interest to you:

        http://www.rense.com/general38/cong.htm [rense.com]

      • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

        by wan-fu ( 746576 )
        Not really. Like someone who's already replied to this post, China already has missile technology easily capable of hitting Taiwan. Taiwan and China are right next to each other. Back in the day, when they were still fighting each other with weapons, artillery fire was able to reach the smaller islands that are part of Taiwan from the coast of China. Yes, it's that close. Oh, and can the US really make it in time to save Taiwan? Maybe, maybe not. [atimes.com] The article provides an interesting insight as to how China c

      • Democracy and East Asian Policy (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Tiro ( 19535 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @06:55PM (#9002204) Journal
        No one in the U.S. government--certainly no one in power in the Republican party--cares about Democracy in China. This is a matter of economic competition.

        The U.S. supported very authoritarian regimes in Korea/Japan in the thirty years post WW Two.

        David Harvey makes a good case for the campaign to increase U.S. power in the Middle East as a way to divert needed energy resources away from the rapidly expanding East Asian economy.

      • Could you explain me why space cooperation necessarily means that American missile defence will be rendered impotent? I thought there are different degrees of cooperation possible and it's not necessary to just give away to Chinese all plans and technical documents...

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 )
      Is this the result of Bush Foreign Relations policy?

      Don't be so quick to blame Bush, recall in the early days of his administration how a Chinese fighter pilot made a dangerous pass at a big slow US Navy aircraft and collided with it. How the aircraft had to make an emergency landing, the crew held as guests for a few days, the aircraft siezed and stripped. Contrast this to a Soviet aircraft that made an emergency landing at a US Base in Alaska. Things are a bit more complicated and a bit less one sided
      • Interesting, any links to this incident? What did happen?
        • Did a Google search and didn't find anything, well more accurately I found too much. Couldn't find a good set of keywords.

          IIRC it happened in the 70s, maybe early 80s, during the cold war in any case. We let the crew stay with the aircraft, we did not invade their aircraft, we trucked out food to the aircraft, we offered fuel, tools, technical assistance but left the Soviets in charge of their aircraft. When they were able to they were simply given permission to take off and they flew home.
          • Here [globalsecurity.org]

            Granted it doesn't give much details other than that it happened, but it also talks about a Chinese civilian airliner who landed at an Alaskan air base and whose passengers were given medical care... So yes, unless they're defecting, the US has a policy of respecting the sovereignty of foreign aircraft that are forced into emergency landings.

  • too mature (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hythlodaeus ( 411441 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:55PM (#8999270)
    I'm fairly patriotic, but someone needs to take stock of things and notice our space technology is so mature it's falling apart...
    • Well said!

      I guarantee the Chinese will have a rice-powered rocket within 2 years, a restaurant on the moon within 5, and 2 billion of their offspring on Mars within 10. ;-)

      -psy

  • I don't blame them. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <<ben> <at> <int.com>> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:00PM (#8999352) Homepage

    Don't forget, the main reason NASA was started in the first place is to demonstrate that the U.S. had the capability to keep up with the Russians when it comes to delivering objects (a.k.a. Nuclear Weapons) using rockets. Many of NASA's advancements in aeronautics and navigation have been used for weapons research. Sharing seeminly benign space exploration technology with the Chinesse government on leaves our ballistic missile technology vunerable because the two are inseperable.
  • but what if they have a point?

    I'm no space geek, but I imagine that if the Chinese technology *is* actually two decades behind the US's, then putting it to use somewhere like, say, space for example could be a bit risky. What happens if their equipment dies whilst interfacing with the ISS? Whilst it's possible that the US are just mean and nasty, perhaps they're doing it because worried about the safety/quality of the Chinese technology.

  • Hey Johnson-Freese! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bowling Moses ( 591924 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:23PM (#8999649) Journal
    I wish I could grab this idiot or whoever's responsible for this crap and hit them square on the noggin with a 2x4. Did someone mention to the idiot in charge that our equipment currently in use is largely based off 1970's technology? So the Chinese are using similar equipment to what we had in the 60's--that makes them 10 years behind, not 20! They're moving forward too, while we're stationary. Watch for the Chinese to announce in 2020 that they are not interested in working with NASA due to our primitive space technology.

    • Re:Hey Johnson-Freese! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dpilot ( 134227 )
      Add to that...

      Today the US is the worlds largest economy. The side effect of outsourcing for reduced labor costs is to lower wages in the US. (war on the middle class) I would expect this to show up as a drag on GDP growth. Sure, corporate profits will be up, but fewer of us will be customers for those products.

      At the same time, the EU has just expanded and Turkey is clamoring to be included in the next round of expansion. I anticipate the EU GDP to pass the US in the next decade, though to be honest I'm
      • I think its great that we all have good economies and that other countries are set to grow.

        I think it sucks that we, the US, think that we always need to be on top, even at the expense of other countries.

        Last time I checked, we're all humans living in the same boat. The world is in increasingly small place, the time for isolationism and nationalism is over, we should all be working together to ensure economic success for everyone.

        Organizations like the WTO are a good thing as long as most of us can reme
        • I agree with everything you said up until the WTO line. I'm not sure if the purpose of the WTO is to promote world trade, or to cement a place at the top for the multinational corporate club. In that respect, I may agree with you, as well. However I think the WE you refer to isn't even the US, it's the members of the aforementioned club.

          Nor was I saying that the US 'needed' to be on top. I was merely saying that some of our current actions are rather arrogant for a #1 possibly destined to become #4 in the

  • NASA to China (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by PD ( 9577 ) *
    Don't call us until you've killed off at least 14 people in flight.

    Seriously, this is stupid. China has orbited a person, and we should be working with these people. Calling someone immature is what a 13 year old girl does to show her disapproval.

    • Re:NASA to China (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Who do you think helps launch their rockets?

      I'll give you a hint. Their name is Lockheed-Martin, and they've been busted for illegal technology transfers to china.

      I think if China want's a litte "cooperation" how about they meet us half way on a few issues. Maybe they could institute freedom of the press, open their markets and stop illegally tying the yuan to the dollar. You know for starters. They can still murder anyone (who's not a member of the press) who doesn't agree with them in public, or has

      • Re:NASA to China (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        When Republican's talk about the hate-America first crowd, they're talking about anyone who's not Republican.
      • So, the space program is the appropriate lever to use to move China into the classification of a civilized country? Give me a break. We should stop being pussies and revoke their most favored nation trade status.

        But, since we're all FOR doing business with China, it's just a little hypocritical to say that we shouldn't launch rockets with them too.

  • What was said between the two countries? (Score:5, Funny)

    by shiwala ( 93327 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:36PM (#8999825)
    I wonder if the dialogue was anything like Civilization II...

    Enraged Chinese Emissary
    "Your civilization's greatness is an example for all, but our people grow jealous of your privileged lifestyle. Only the secret of Space Flight will appease them!"

    [o] "No. Your people are not ready for such knowledge."
    [_] Give secret of Space Flight.

    Enraged Chinese Emissary
    "We know you have knowledge of Space Flight. Give us the secret at once, or face the consequences!"

    [o] "Consequences, schmonsequences!"
    [_] Give secret of Space Flight.

    ...(with apologies to Sid Meier)

  • Diplomacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Strange Ranger ( 454494 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:36PM (#8999836)
    Shenzhou 5, - Pretty sure I had that for lunch today!

    On a serious note, [asbestos suit=ON] how much did our neo-con nationalistic isolationist Executive Branch have to do with this decision. I realize that China would likely get all the tech benefits of any cooperation, but the benefits don't end with technology. Johnson-Freese sounds like a highly qualified technical advisor, but not an international policy maker. Right now China is a sleeping bear. It might be wise to extend some neighborly friendship now, while China is still in a position where they can't just defacto turn their noses up at it.

    It's a safe bet that in a decade or two Chinese languages will be more popular in U.S. public schools than Spanish.

    I'm not saying we should be afraid of the Chinese, especially not to the point of handing them our technologies. But it's also never wise to foster the creation of a powerful enemy.

    Bottom line, I certianly think the U.S. could've handled this more diplomatically. Of couse you can say that about so much these days.
    • Russia is a sleeping bear.

      China is a hidden dragon. (And she's pretty *hot* too!)

  • no need for excuses (Score:5, Informative)

    by demo9orgon ( 156675 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:36PM (#8999838) Homepage
    When someone who may not necessarily be as (adept,technically cool,well-dressed) as you offers to incorporate your designs on (code,hardware) into their systems you don't dismiss them. You look at the situation as a moment upon which to build standards and some kind of relationship. WTF? Is NASA some kind of High-School cheerleader that's afraid to be seen with the Chinese kid?

    If I was running anything at NASA I'd welcome them, offer specs, and request an inspection of any hardware prior to send-off for docking in order to ensure compliance. The only other requirement I'd stipulate would be a technician to assist the Taikonaut's CAPCOM with any issues that may arise during a docking. It would rock to have a Chinese visit to the "INTERNATIONAL" freakin' space station.

    They can't believe that NASA would snub them.
    Everyone with a brain should be wondering too.
    Did someone at NASA blink and have a phantasm about helplessly watching the Chinese storm the ISS? Good Grief!

    Where's the change in the "Culutre" of NASA which would allow them to remove their collective heads from their collective arse?

    I know "existence preceeds essense", why can't NASA understand?

    Because the right heads haven't been lopped off...the NASAhole brigade is still firmly in place, and I imagine Bush Jr. probably laughed when he heard this, hell, he was probably listening on the other line and laughing. Bush Sr. will probably sucker-punch his boy sometime in the near future for this.

    • If I was running anything at NASA I'd welcome them, offer specs, and request an inspection of any hardware prior to send-off for docking in order to ensure compliance.

      And then after we get in a tussle with China in the future and Los Angeles is leveled to the ground with an ICBM, the post-cleanup team discovers they followed the spec quite well.
      • I don't get it. We're talking about the same kind of micro-gravity PR happy-joy stuff we were doing with the CCCP, not ICBM's. ICBM's are easy compared to a sustained orbital prescense.

        Measurements, tolerances, and docking protocol == Lost Angeles, USA gets nuked sometime in the future?

        You're not a WWII/Korean Conflict veteran are you? I know several people from that era, and sometimes the social impact of such important events will echo into the present. Sometimes those echoes are a bit less thought out
  • "Hold your friends close and your (potential) enemies closer."
  • The ISS is international, the chinese don't need NASA to let them get involved, they can simply go to Europe or Russia, who I'm sure will be more than willing to let them in. IIRC NASA doesn't want tourists on the ISS, but that didn't stop Russia from taking them anyway. To hell with NASA, I say.

  • We Can Do It Alone! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doug Dante ( 22218 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:20PM (#9000354)
    NASA is increasingly isolating itself by insisting that it can simultaneously fix the Space Shuttles, establish a permanent lunar base, and and send humans to Mars.

    All on it's own - with a modest international coolition of willing partners.

    Sound familiar?

    • NASA has been working closely with the "international community" for 10 years now on IIS. Where has it gotten us? We have a moribund program consisting of Russian and American station occupants patching holes in the wall, entertaining celebrity guests, and trying to keep from strangling each other. Apollo represents the high point of space exploration, not exceeded in 30+ years. I would like to see the U.S. go back to it.

  • It's not NASA's decision (Score:5, Informative)

    by cyclone96 ( 129449 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:31PM (#9001277)
    Disclaimer: I work for NASA.

    A lot of the comments on this thread are being critical of NASA for not allowing Chinese participation in ISS.

    This is not NASA's decision. Hell, many of us would be thrilled to work with the Chinese (despite what you may see on the news, working with the Russians is very fun, challenging, and exciting to us grunt engineers). NASA takes its marching orders directly from the executive branch, and whether or not to include China in NASA's manned program is decided by the White House, and technical merit is at the very bottom of the evaluation criteria on whether to include them or not.

    At the top are probably two considerations...

    Political - this is a huge carrot to wave in front of the Chinese, and I don't think the White House is ready to cash in on it yet. I can imagine it coming into play if we wanted something from China with respect to either the North Korean or Taiwan issues.

    Technology Transfer - like it or not, the same basic technology that is used to put people in space is also used to defend the United States. Any time you work with an international partner who is "behind" you technically, some of the technology bleeds over (no matter how hard you try to stop it) and the technology gap closes. You need to be very careful about that when you are talking about working with a potential adversary. Is the risk worth the benefit? Right now, I think the answer the national leadership has decided is "no".

  • Fascinating. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @06:10PM (#9001724) Homepage
    I'd not be so quick to condemm NASA as folks here are so far, the article is missing almost every pertinent detail and the only source is a third party individual, which makes the whole matter rather suspect. (Keep in mind that China's phraseolgy has been somewhat ambigious when it comes to their space program. This has lead to numerous misunderstandings.)

    One must wonder, what exactly did the Chinese ask for or offer? What exactly was NASA's response?

  • China immature? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @06:21PM (#9001845)
    Wait, didn't all the harpies crow about China copying Russian tech? Is Russian tech so immature that NASA can't allow Russian participation? :)

    NASA tech is essentially the same as it was in 1980, when the shuttles were finalized. Meanwhile, Russia has a new generation of Soyuz, and computers aboard the Shenzhou are much more advanced than those on shuttle firstflight.

    Ofcourse the Chinese rocket programs have been around for over 1000 years... so it's easy to see why it's immature, afterall US rocket programs have been around for 60 years. (230 on the outside)

    Then again, the Europeans have yet to launch man rated platforms, as well the Japanese, and Canadians. The Russians crashed a cargo ship into Mir as well...

    So, the Chinese program is less mature than either the European programs or the Japanese program. (Hence the launch failures of Ariane 5 designed for the Hermes spaceplane, and the H2A based on the H2 designed for the Hope spaceplane)

    NASA will ofcourse be using these "mature" programs to attach modules (without intervening airlocks) to the ISS...

    Have the Japanese or European programs demonstrated docking in space yet?

    The ESA cargoship is supposed to supply the ISS afterall...
    • Then again, the Europeans have yet to launch man rated platforms, as well the Japanese, and Canadians. The Russians crashed a cargo ship into Mir as well...

      We've all blown up people in space-related ventures. Shit happens.

      Lets work toward sharing our ideas so we can avoid more it in the future.

      Yes, I know we can't just send them our technology, gotta defend the US and all that. That wouldn't be as much a problem if international economies weren't so isolated.

  • So (Score:5, Funny)

    by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Thursday April 29, 2004 @03:52AM (#9005037) Journal
    They've got a craft with a docking ring for the ISS.

    What's really to stop them from launching and just hooking on up with the ISS? Are there anti-spacecraft LASERS on the ISS?

    Hell, if I could do it , I would ...
    (Another quiet day on the ISS)
    (Suddenly there's a bit of a bump)
    radio: "Bing,bong!"
    ISS crew: "er, Hello?"
    radio : "Ah, g'day. Was just in the neighborhood and thought I'd do the friendly thing and drop in and say hi."
    ISS crew: "(Stunned silence)"
    radio: "I've got a six pack on ice here.... want one? We could chuck empty beer bottles at passing continents... bet you can't hit the white house from here!"

  • I've been told by people who worked on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP), that the Soviets viewed it as a major opportunity for industrial espionage under the cover of "international cooperation". ASTP was arguably a project among equals in the space race. The Chinese have a long way to go before they reach that point. ESA had better be careful that they don't get played by the Chinese.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close