Slashdot Mirror


Asia's Space Race: China vs. India

securitas writes "London-based military historian and commentator Gwynne Dyer writes about Asia's developing space race with plans from China and India to land people on the Moon, previously mentioned on Slashdot in China's case. In April India announced it will send an unmanned probe to the Moon by 2005 and a manned mission by 2015. Critics say it's a waste of time and money for India to pursue the goal. Meanwhile, Russian space experts are quietly helping China in what is seen as a growing alliance and a somewhat alarmist op-ed piece from the Washington Times worries about China's 21st century space dominance and monopolization of strategic resources like H3, used in nuclear fusion."

35 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Right by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 3, Funny

    What Aliens really need is SARS?

    --
    Je t'aime Stéphanie
  2. One good thing.... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 5, Funny

    When you take your holiday to the moon in twenty years time you'll be spoilt for choice when it comes to takeout/takeaway food. Chow mein or curry? It's always a dilemma for me...

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  3. Finally by Dashmon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Finally some global interest in spacefaring. As long as only one nation has any interest in space stuff, there's never going to be any substantial new developments. That, and the US really doesn't have any right to be the sole ruler up there (although it's our (europe's) own fault, as we just let the US lead every mission and all research). I hope europe, asia, and the US will working together more than they are today, in the near future.

    1. Re:Finally by mrseigen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hopefully, this will also shove the Yanks to get back on track for space technology, even for no reasons other than national security (I think the Americans still fear China, correct?).

    2. Re:Finally by thinmac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope europe, asia, and the US will working together more than they are today

      Actually, I think the lesson here is that we need to hope that they don't work together. Why did the space race in the middle of the 20th century accomplish so much? Because the US and the Russians were competing. Why is this talk of Indian and Chinese space programs spurring discussion and worry about the space program in the US? Because they signify new competition when we haven't had any in so long. What we need is competition, not cooperation; just like in business, the best situation is when there are lots of fairly equal players all at each other's throats, and monopolies (either through a single country dominating, or multiple countries working as a team) kills progress.

  4. Re:US in the new Space race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just tell Bush that Osama is hiding in a cave on the moon and you have new rockets developed and people there in no time.

  5. Useful stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really do hope that America and China start a new space race, especially if the prize is a useful resource rather than just patriotic pride. That way any technology that's developed as a result will be more immediately useful to the rest of us, rather than more interesting ideas waiting for applications.

    I'm not a great fan of the idea of China and America carving up the moon between them, though.

  6. The major problem of the world in every century by ketamine-bp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is always the balance of power. from the napoleonic era to the realpolitik era, to inter-war period and post war period, then cold war, it's always balance of power that acts on the world to prevent world domination.

    Powers comes and goes. Napoleon rises, and falls. Bismarck rises, and falls. The franks, then the prussians, the list goes on and on, now it comes to america, who knows if the next one is China?

    Yet i don't think china could gasp the key to victory here by having space mission that denotes quite a bit of nothing in military terms (forget the whole lot on spy satellite, they are of no significant use on a direct confrontation of two nuclear-powered countries). To me, I would be more impressed and scared off by the change to democratic (NOT the democratic party but rather democratic society-type form, i.e. humanitarian, [n.b. vegetarian eats vegetable.. so humanitarian eats.. oh nevermind.]) or there is a significant change in the government structure and the way people do business (i.e. guanxi or so.)

    enough offtopic, but here's what I want to say on space mission for china.

    <div tone="sarcastic">
    For india, I think that they better feed their crowd better before the birth mortality rate goes back to the 1930s standard. (THAT'S flamey.)
    </div>

    1. Re:The major problem of the world in every century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I was waiting to see the first highly moderated post and it's exactly what I expected: "We're (Western nations) are #1, this means nothing." Wake up, China has a population three times the size of North America, India twice. Since you quote history, it shouldn't be difficult to uncover 19th century Euporean sentiments similar to yours regarding the US. Their complacency was proven wrong too. (The colonial similarities between old Europe and modern America are also striking, but that's a different story.)

      The Chinese and Indian people are just as smart and educated as any other, and a whole lot less comfortable and hungrier for achievment. Sit back, relax, and you'll watch them eat your lunch.

    2. Re:The major problem of the world in every century by eurostar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...consistently been able to feed its population...
      um...do you have your head in the sand ?

  7. This is good news for everyone. by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is good that India and China are competing through science, and not through arms. Honestly, I don't see how this could be a bad thing for anyone. India and China will both make new scientific discoveries, and seeing them get into space may inspire the EU, the US and Russia to increase their space efforts.


    I know lots of people are going to complain that India should be focusing their efforts on improving their living standards rather than going on wild adventures. But I don't think the one has to distract from the other. India actually has enough food to feed herself, its just a problem of social structure and education. And it is not as if the resources used for going into space make that great of a impact on the ability of India to educate its population. In economic terms, there isn't that great of a cost of space missions, because the resources that go into them can't really easily go anywhere else.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    1. Re:This is good news for everyone. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      India and China still have nuclear weapons and everyone knows that developing heavy-lift rockets always helps your nuclear missile systems.

      While China and Russia get closer the United States and India will as well. Or maybe India and Japan.

    2. Re:This is good news for everyone. by bluGill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

      I don't mind helping a poor person who gets into trouble get out of trouble. However giving a poor person an endless supply of food doesn't help that poor person get richer. He may eat, but he will never contribute to socity. He ends up being a drain on resources that I would prefer to spend other places.

      The theory of space programs is they require jobs to achive. So you hire and pay some smart people, who then have money to hire other (not so smart?) people to do things, and your ecconomy improves. India has plenty of smart people who don't have good jobs, so a space program will help them out. Once they get bootstraped out of the situation they are in, they can drop the space program and go to things they would rather have. (or not, there is nothing wrong with a space program other than the money it costs, and they might come up with a good reason to keep it)

  8. Oh please by ErikZ · · Score: 4, Interesting


    China is too risk adverse to become a major player. They'll probably get to the moon. Then the first major accident after that (loosing face) will have them scale back to the "Floating in endless circles" model the US uses.

    And when China gives up, India will bow out soon after.

    Space will be conqured by people, THEN the governments will follow.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  9. So, India should concentrate on... by Travoltus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    dire domestic matters first, eh?
    Isn't that what they said about America?
    Ever recall "Whitey on the moon"?

    India has just as legitimate a reason to go into space as China. Aside from needing the room, they have just as much right to push into the ultra modern age as the rest of us.

    Jeesh, what a bunch of racist banter.

    At least the US isn't threatened with nuclear war with India over Taiwan.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  10. It is pretty alarmist by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The day we were visiting, the Chinese crew was utilizing the EVA (extra-vehicular activity) building. You do not train for EVAs if you are doing simple orbital missions. EVAs are typically related to space-based construction work."

    That's just plain FUD. The US and Soviets EVA'ed for years and years before they ever did any space-based construction work.

    From Skylab to Mir the majority of space stations were assembled by docking modules togeather with minimal EVA for bolting things on.

    Ed White's Gemini EVA took place 20 years before Shuttle missions started EVAs for fixing equipment in orbit.

  11. Re:just what we need.. by NetCAM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yea, cept it aint going happen. The Bush administration is hell bent on destroying the environment, casting away alliances 40+ years in the making, starting wars, continuing to lose a war on drugs that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer while locking up thousands of people for non-viloent crimes.

    I doubt Nasa or and science/space related issues even come close to becoming part of their agenda unless a tradegy happens like the Columbia accident happens.

    America will wakeup and rush back into the space arena only when it suits the politicans politically and financially and by then it will be to late. JFK did a good thing by creating the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely. Its a shame that the politicans and american publics support for that program died after that happened.

  12. Re:More politics than science ... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Please don't begin to kid yourselves that these countries have an interest in visiting the stars, their entire motive (while hidden well) is to develope their own rockets that will deliever their own nuclear weapons.

    Heh...your post sounds like the middle eastern population calling us "american devils" and whatnot

    Give them the benefit of the doubt. Not everything a communist country does has to be a "politically correct ploy for world destruction."

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  13. What is this guy on? by panurge · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Third, as the nation in position to exploit moon resources, China could leapfrog the world in some important earthbound technologies. Scientists have acknowledged the usefulness of H3 in helping achieve nuclear fusion success. The moon appears to be a large source of naturally occurring H3, a commodity that would be of such value that the transport back to Earth would be economically feasible."
    When I read this, I began to wonder if it was a spoof. Yes, tritium/deuterium fusion is easier to achieve than D/D fusion. What do you think they put in H-bomb warheads? But the idea that piles of tritium lie around on the Moon waiting to be picked up and shovelled into a re-entry vehicle is, frankly, bizarre. [note to anyone who doesn't get it: yes, I do know what tritium is like. I worked with it for years, which is why I feel slightly qualified to post on this subject.]
    Can any one point to where this one came from?

    The number of H-bomb warheads in circulation demonstrates that there is not exactly a world shortage of tritium or ability to produce it; certainly as the US wasn't afraid of polluting the Colorado River, and the UK of polluting the Irish Sea, I can't imagine that the Chinese would be too worried about the side effects of massive tritium production.

    Conclusion: this is an attempt to frighten paranoid hawks into believing that the Space Race must be resumed to prevent the Chinese from laying claim to all those tritium mines on the Moon. Whereas, actually, we might be better off with some serious international negotiation on space, perhaps even some cooperation. While articles like this one reinforce Chinese paranoia about US intentions, (the author makes it clear that the US must not lose domination in space) we all surely have more to gain by trying to defuse the potential tensions in advance. Which might mean that Dubya has to rethink his approach to ripping up international agreements, but would that be a bad thing?

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:What is this guy on? by RevRigel · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a typo. The moon is an excellent source of Helium-3, which when reacted with Hydrogen-1 provides much cleaner, and more importantly, lower activation energy fusion than H3-H2 or H2-H2 fusion.
      He3 is on the moon is great quantity because the surface of the moon soaks up all the particles in the solar wind, which includes a good bit of He3.

    2. Re:What is this guy on? by thue · · Score: 3, Informative
  14. Bruce Sterling on the India-China space race by Allen+Varney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bruce Sterling talked about the India/China space race in his May 2003 Wired column. Some extracts:

    "Nobody in the Western press takes much notice of India's space aspirations, because by Yankee standards it doesn't make sense for India to have any. Yet India launched its first missile in 1963 and its first cosmonaut in 1984. Nobody in the West thought the country would ever go nuclear, either. That was a blunder in judgment. [...]

    "Why is Gandhi's homeland trying to reach the moon when people sleep on the streets in Calcutta and AIDS gnaws the country's flesh? For the same reason the US sloughed off poverty programs to fund Apollo in the 1960s: global prestige.

    "India doesn't need long-range missiles to nuke neighbor and archrival Pakistan. For a war that intimate, bullock carts would do. The Agni III is aimed straight at world public opinion. The India-Pakistan PR skirmish is already almost over, and India is clearly winning. Every great power sweats bullets over Pakistan's bomb, but India's somehow makes that country worthy of consideration for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. [...]

    "Since India demonstrated its bomb in 1998, the Chinese have been increasingly uneasy. China reacted to the detonation with angry demands that the international community keep India contained. When that got nowhere, China helped Pakistan go nuclear. In retrospect, that was a scary, destabilizing misstep. But now India and China are poised to continue their rivalry on safer high ground - beyond Earth's atmosphere.

    "Nuclear India versus nuclear China is Kennedy versus Kruschev, and Reagan versus Gorbachev, all over again. Now, as then, a space race is a sexy alternative to nuclear annihilation. [...]

    "Who will become top dog in South Asia? That's an open question, and there aren't many good ways to answer short of a useless massacre. A space race offers a good solution. It's a symbolic tournament that tests competing political and economic systems to their limit.

    "A decade after the end of the Cold War, good old-fashioned space programs still matter. Not for exploration's sake, but to settle new cold wars. If you doubt it, imagine this scenario: It's 2029, and a lunar mission lands at Tranquillity Base. A crew of heroic young Indians - or Chinese - quietly folds and puts away America's 60-year-old flag. If the world saw that on television, wouldn't the gesture be worth tens of billions of rupees or yuan? Of course it would."

    1. Re:Bruce Sterling on the India-China space race by The+Cydonian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree on both counts. Rakesh Sharma was India's first cosmonaut (much like Kalpana Chawla being the first Indian-born astronaut), and yes, while not to take points out of the Chinese, I have a lot of respect for Chinese scientists, it does seem to me that China is ripping Soviet technology off.

      Incidentally, it's ironical that you were talking about clean, cheap electric power, that is exactly what Rakesh Sharma apparently researched on, while aboard the Soyuz capsule.

      That said, I believe all this talk of The Next Great Space Race is all (western?) media speculation; really, I'd be hardpressed to see anyone at Sriharikota (that's India's launch base) itching to compete with the Chinese (or the Chinese competing with us Indians); my impression so far has been that ISRO is all Zen-like in its aspirations. There's an interesting piece on this in Raj Chengappa's Weapons of Peace for anyone interested in Indian science.

  15. Re:More politics than science ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Heh...your post sounds like the middle eastern population calling us "american devils" and whatnot

    Look at the timeline for Americas ICBM program in comparison for our "Race for the moon".

    Seems pretty close, odd part is, it's the same for the former USSR.

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  16. Re:Co-operation is the way to go! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'll be a come-uppance for the "market-always-determines-the-best-solution-crowd" to see these state-sponsored ventures dominating comercial use of space-exploration, while the "Market Solutions" stop somewhere around Dish Network.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  17. Indian Ventures == PR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am an Indian (note this before you start flaming or modding down) and has been following the Indian space programme and a whole lot of other programmes for quite a while, (and yes, I can claim to understand the Indian psychology more).

    In India everything of this nature are 90% for PR and public consumption and 10% realistic projects.

    This is a not stupid move either [although, it does end up foul, read on], unlike many Sladhdotters who think that India is stupidly wasting money on space, ocean, Antarctica and a whole lot of crap that are playthings for rich countries, while the people starve.

    It is a calculated risk, more money is spent on trying to keep the economy stable, trying to provide decent health etc. (The percentage of GDP spent on defence in India is much less than that of the US.) The problem is that the corruption in this area is a whole lot more than the corruption that takes place in the high-tech stuff.

    Okey, to make it short the basic ideas are:

    • Poke their hand everywhere to show that they can do what the big, technologically advanced nations can do (but it ends there... at the poking stage).
    • Keep the morale of the people up --which would be at 0 if it were not for all this euphoria enducing techo-crap.
    • Contrary to popular belief, these areas are are more difficult to swipe money from, (well, this is a relative concept), compared to the distribution of healthcare, economy (liberalisation, deregulation etc.), and food and stuff, where all the big bucks are.

    The bottomline is that it is more PR, these vision are not realistic from the financial point of view --India doesn't have the money to pull this off, nor will they be ready to take money from the food-health-economy dept. and put it here, even with domestic private investors, for the simple reason that corrupt dudes would lose the easy buck and money laundering private businessmen will lose a lot of opportunities.

  18. What about the Lunar Treaty? by farrellj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is the current status, and how has signed it...the Lunar Treaty gives The Moon similar status to Antartica, saying that The Moon is a common property of all people of the Earth, and any country that makes use of it's resources must share them equally with the people of the Earth. Did China sign, or are they following the US lead and ignoring treaties?

    ttyl
    Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
  19. Re:India has a Caste System Society!?!? by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The caste system society in India is now more or less similar to class system societies in many other parts of the world (including developed countries).

    While I agree with your assessment that caste system is bad, I think the sentence "Any intelligent person should not look respectfully at India as a country until the caste system is snuffed out in every form". Rememer, USA has had won two world wars, built the best highway systems in the world, built the bomb, and sent men to moon -- all before it was OK for blacks to sit in the same row seats as whites in a bus.

    So, while there are some things that are bad with India, it should not be used as a reason for denying her some other good things.

    S

  20. Re:US in the new Space race by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Lockheed Martin to Build Nuclear Powered Spacecraft (A seriously misnamed story, but anyway. See also Bush launches nuke space technology) Or the fact that NASA is currently doing research on Space Elevators? We're actively working on going into space in a more meaningful fashion than the just-for-show ISS. (Opinions on the ISS vary but doesn't it seem a little dinky?) Studies on Asteroid (PDF) Mining are critical to getting into space in a big, BIG way, and NASA is working on those too.

    Anyway a space race is coming, the US will certainly be involved, because China is the last great evil. These mideastern conflicts are tiny compared to what would happen if China were feeling froggy, and that fear will drive us just as it did in our space race against Russia.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. What we really needs is another Space Race by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This allows the two emerging superpowers of Asia to compete in ways other than an arms race or international satellite countries. I'd like to see this culminate in a Mars race between the US, China, India, Europe, Japan, and perhaps Russia (or at least as part of another team). Competition between space programs drove them to the cutting edge so much faster than would have been possible otherwise, or as Buzz Aldrin said "it was like transplanting a decade from the 21st century into the 20th". Technology will benefit, new technologies will develop, and we just might gain the knowledge needed to get off our little cradle in case of emergency. Lord knows that if someone other than the US gets beyond the moon first we will probably get stirred into action, especially if someone like Bush is in office. With the shuttle program out of whack, we could use a good kick in the pants for our own program anyway.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  22. Wrong... by Goonie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as the neocons are concerned, China is still the main game. Why do you *really* think the US is building its missile defence system? "Rogue states" my arse. It's all about being able to defend Taiwan without having to worry (quite so much) about nuclear blackmail from the Chinese if you do so.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  23. Re:US in the new Space race by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just tell Bush that Osama is hiding in a cave on the moon and you have new rockets developed and people there in no time.

    Huh? Then why don't they do that in Pakistan? Bush scare tactics work better when the enemy is still at large.

    --
    You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
  24. Re:Hindu in space. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Riiight. But, does it feature Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, India's top missile scientist, current President and a devout Muslim? Dr Homi Bhabha, the man behind India's nuclear programme who was a practising Parsi?

    You know, there are other Indians out there who'd like to think we've developed our space programmes as technically-capable Indians, not Hindus, Muslims or any other shit. I, for one, can't see why the alleged Hindu contribution should be seperated from an all-Indian one.

  25. He3 by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The moon is an excellent source of Helium-3, which when reacted with Hydrogen-1 provides much cleaner, and more importantly, lower activation energy fusion than H3-H2 or H2-H2 fusion.

    Actually, D+T is still far easier. He3+_D_ is about on par with D+D, and more importantly produces an energetic _proton_ as the decay product. He3 will not fuse with p, as that would give you something like Li4 (no dice).

    D+T is easy but produces a boatload of neutrons, which carry away most of the reaction energy. As these aren't confined by the reactor's magnetic field, you're stuck letting the shielding material heat up and drawing power off of it with a heat engine. The reactor vessel itself rapidly degrades due to intense neutron radiation.

    You also need to produce a steady supply of T, but you can breed that from a lithium blanket, or just surround the reactor vessel with heavy water and let it breed from D.

    D+D fusion is a bit cleaner than D+T, but much harder to achieve. It produces He3+n half the time and T+p the other half. The T will react very quickly to produce He4+n, which carries away most of the energy in the neutron. If you don't have a long confinement time, you're stuck with this. If you do have a long confinement time, the He3 will burn with D to produce He4+p, which carries away a lot of the energy in the p, which stays confined, heats the plasma, and is otherwise nice.

    Summary for D+D: Only decent if you can keep it confined for a while, still releases half its energy as neutrons, much harder than D+T.

    He3+D is slightly easier than D+D, but still in the same ballpark (much harder than D+T). Most importantly, He3+D gives He4+p, so almost all of your energy ends up in charged particles. The problem is that you get D+D happening as long as there's D in the plasma, so you have to run a reactor with much more He3 than D, and still get neutrons coming out - just much less than with D+D. This means your reactor vessel lasts at least 10 times longer, your plasma heats itself, and you can use higher-efficiency methods of tapping power if you want to.

    The problem is that He3 is rare, and trying to breed it via D+D just gives you a D+D reactor, with its neutron problem.

    If there's a lot of He3 on the moon and it's relatively easily harvested, it may be a viable source of fuel. I have my doubts about this being practical (I think we'd be better off filtering it out of natural helium, though that's not a picnic either, as it's much rarer than deuterium).

  26. Re:no china and india in space by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn't say I was in favor of it, just reporting what they are saying they are going to do, which is, dominate space and keep other people *out* of space.

    When it comers to weapons I would support a world wide planetary ban on anything not man portable. that won't happen of course, but that's the level I think humans are at socially, technologically we are far more advanced of course, but realisitcally, we are just medievals with better technology. For all practical purposes humans haven't changed for thousands of years. Advanced weapons will be our undoing as a species I'm afraid, because it's where the BIG money and big efforts go. It sucks, but there ya go.

    The reason why they (US 'space command') are doing this is because we are rapidly losing any sort of conventional superiority. In particular china will overtake the US within one decade. And that's the CIAs analysis too, they will be the worlds largest economy and have the largest conventional forces. they are leapfrogging multiple years of what we in the west consider "normal" advancements in single years. They are advancing several years to our one, and a buck goes ten times further there in getting hardware on the ground. We simply do not build things in quantity any more, and military stuff is just stuff, it has to be built, not just designed and have committees about it. Crap like Iraq is not a real war, and even that took huge amounts of our forces to accompliosh, plus bribing off the top generals in advance with suitcases of benjamins, euros, and bars of gold. It wouldn't have been the same outcome fighting a much larger force with closer to ours technology. the only advantage we have is to try and stay so far advanced that no one dares attack (or resists being attacked). It has to be quality now, not quantity, we simply can't do it that way any longer. And,tactically speaking, the high ground is that, the high ground, that's been the same since we fought with thrown rocks. High ground keeps you safer, and makes it easier to rain destruction on your enemies. Gravity works. Joe pentagon has ALWAYS worked towards owning the high ground.