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

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."

Comments

Why?

[Dios]

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?

[Giant Ape Skeleton]

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?

[The One and Only]

Remember that the White House is run by neoconservatives, and neocons became infamous in the 90's for opposing China and considering it a threat. There's a bit less of that since 9/11, but the neocons still don't love China. After all, China is a dictatorship whose government kills its people by the thousands.

Remember, rockets for space and ballistic missiles for crushing your enemies are basically the same technology. The powers that be just might not want to collaborate with them on that technology.

Re:Why?

[gl4ss]

*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?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but there's nothing wrong with having someone else who can help maintain/build the station. Russia can't afford more than a few launches a year, and we all know the shuttles will be grounded for another couple of years if anybody finds so much as a scratch in the paint on one of them.

Re:Why?

[Rick the Red]

Yeah, it's OK if we get technology from the commies, but we won't let the commies get technology from us!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded this flamebait could just as easily have posted an intelligent rebuttal.

Re:Why?

[ctr2sprt]

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?

[a whoabot]

China already has missle technology capable of launching various payloads* 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

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

> China is developing missiles they can fire from the mainland to attack Taiwan.

Actually they have deployed missles directed at Taiwan. This is not done secretly and China openly admits it. It is actually an open threat, should Taiwan openly declare independency.

> This isn't WMD-ish speculation, China's admitted they're doing it

Aren't you mistaking North Korea with China? China has been a nuclear power for over 30 years and also has ICBMs for quite some time (currently more than 2k).

> This is 99% of the world's fear about us withdrawing from the ABM treaty, [...]

Yeah, and not that it might destroy the MAD principle between all nations. You may trust your country. But strangely other nations don't have a fluffy warm feeling about having another nation with so much power.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missinformation is almost as bad as his.

At most chinas nuclear weapons number in the hundreds, and their ICBMs account for a major fraction of those. And while quite enough to wreck considerable destruction the are a far cry from 2000+. China's nuclear arsenal probably would be enough to survive a pre-emptive US strike, but maybe not. And it would, particularly in consideration of decoys, almost certainly be enough to overwhelm a missle defense shield.

MAD only really applies to the former soviet block nations with appreciable nuclear forces, china and the western nuclear powers. It's predicated on the belief that while people are not always rational, they are rational enough that powerful nations can be trusted to not gamble the survival of their people. It's actually as brilliant as it is disturbing, leveraging both emotion and reason to a common good. Of course with unstable regimes the assumptions the principle is predicated upon are frequently false.

For China, Taiwan is all about image. They don't want it to look like the tail is waging the dog. It'd be like Puerto Rico setting the national agenda of the United States. Should that happen here, we would obviously consider it a significant problem that needed to be addressed. It totalitarian regime like China it would put the legitimacy of the government in question.

Of course there is still the question of Taiwan restarting their nuclear program that was more or less dismantled by the CIA circa '92 or so. (They actually had a trapdoor to a secret lair in a nuclear power plant. Supplied by a Virtucon sub-contractor no doubt.) But even if Taiwan did openly declare it's independance, there are question about whether China would make good on all it's saber ratteling with reguard to the small island. Their costs we're they just left to fight the Taiwanese would be a far cry from modest. The economic consequences would be swift, and devestating for everyone across asia but none would suffer more than the chinese. Then there is the matter of the treaty where the US is obligated to defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression. With US forces involved it's doubtful the Chinese could achive air superiority dooming utterly any invasion plans. To say nothing of how the near by island nation of Japan would view such an incident with their F-15J's. (The F-15, 101 air victories to 0 defeats.) No body wants the kind of grief that's going to bring. So they have a gentalmens agreement.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

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.

Re:Why?

[wan-fu]

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. The article provides an interesting insight as to how China could quickly take over the island. Remember, it's not like the US Navy sits in the Taiwan strait all day. They actually have to deploy out from Japan/S. Korea/Guam/etc.

Re:Why?

[AHumbleOpinion]

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 than you suggest.

Re:Why?

[aminorex]

> 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...

Re:Why?

[Richard_at_work]

Interesting, any links to this incident? What did happen?

Re:Why?

[ces]

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?

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Bush sucks at foreign relations, so this must be just another screwup."

Refusing to cooperate is not the screwup. Refusing to cooperate and being insulting about it is.

Foreign relations is 50% what you do and don't do, so for that half of it your assertion would be correct.. need to look deeper. BUT the other 50% of Foreign Relations is HOW it's done, regardless of the outcome. "Your technology is not mature enough" is so much worse than "We aren't prepared to do that in today's international climate, but we'll keep a postive eye out for future opportunities."

The bullsh1t IS important.

~I post anonymously because I like my comment log to keep track of THREADS I'm currently active in, rather than every single frickin post continuously knocking off the bottom threads forever out of my log.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like when Britain was ripped off of the promised knowledge sharing with the US regarding supersonic flight. Britain shared, got nothing in return.

Re:Why?

[danila]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

The WHY is the fear. Culturally we are fearful of that which we do not know and or understand. It is how we deal with this fear that seperates us from the Chinese. Just take a look at history and you can see how the Western cultures approach fear and how the Eastern cultures approach fear. If the goal is survival, we may need to re-examine our approach to the unknown.

Re:Why?

[Buran]

Actually, there has been one -- STS-51F performed the only in-flight abort ever to occur in the Shuttle program.

More info about Abort-To-Orbit.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

Did not know that. Thanks!

too mature

[Hythlodaeus]

I'm fairly patriotic, but someone needs to take stock of things and notice our space technology is so mature it's falling apart...

Re:too mature

[psyconaut]

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.

[Dr. Bent]

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.

Re:I don't blame them.

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll do it without you.

Re:I don't blame them.

[Lord Omlette]

I totally understand what you're saying, but it's still embarrassing for us and a public relations coup for them. The Chinese and the Europeans are already cooperating on a GPS alternative, right?

Re:I don't blame them.

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, and in 20 yrs they'll still be 20 yrs behind us ROFL

Re:I don't blame them.

[AgentAce]

It's not like they can't buy this shit fromthe Russians anyway...

The article makes it sound like a bad thing

[NeGz]

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.

Re:The article makes it sound like a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not according to the article, as in this paragraph:

"Despite this investment, and China's cautious approach to the launching of its manned missions, the U.S. remained unmoved. Questions over whether China's space effort is a civilian program, or a military endeavor that could eventually threaten the U.S., were reportedly responsible for the
U.S.'s uncooperative reaction."

It looks like China has demonstrated their technology is safe. That's not the issue, but the US is afraid of the military implications of the Chinese program. Basically the US doesn't want to share.

I'd say this is a Good Thing. It would be an even Better Thing if ESA cooperates with China. Let the Americans rot in their own glory even faster.

Re:The article makes it sound like a bad thing

[BigBir3d]

Seems to me that NASA's old tech stuff worked a heck of a lot better than anything they have thrown into space since the late '70's early '80's. The examples abound... Hubble, Space Shuttle, various Mars projects, etc.

Planetary thinking is far beyond anything the current US political atmosphere will allow for....

Re:The article makes it sound like a bad thing

[Giant Ape Skeleton]

I wouldn't blame the U.S. political environment as much as the Management culture at NASA,
coupled with the "smaller, faster, and cheaper" design philosophy currently in vogue.

Of course, as a geek, I'm always looking for ways to blame Management! ;-)

Hey Johnson-Freese!

[Bowling Moses]

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!

[dpilot]

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 not terribly familiar with the numbers. A few moments on Google turned up $9.5e12 for the EU vs $10.1e12 for the US, and then went on to talk about how higher US military spending made the US better. One might also fear too much military spending as a drag on the economy. Sure military dollars are commercial contracts, but those dollars don't regenerate the way private sector activity would.

On the other side of the world, India and China both have much larger populations. Both are well behind the US, but both are eagerly trying to grow. In particular, we've been shipping jobs (and growth) to both for decades.

By mid-century *if present trends continue* I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the US be the 4th-ranked world economy. But it will take an additional decade added to my historical family lifetime for me to see that.

*if present trends continue* I once saw Lester Thoreau speak 'on the future', and he said that the only predictable thing about the future was that present trends won't continue. Could get better, could get worse.

Re:Hey Johnson-Freese!

[Suidae]

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 remember that the object is not to screw our neighbors so we can get ahead.

Re:Hey Johnson-Freese!

[dpilot]

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 next few decades. Moving from #1 to #4, under any circumstances, can be 'traumatic', and it doesn't help if you've previously antagonized those moving above you.

NASA to China

[PD]

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

[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 a demonstration, or adheres to some goofy religion, and have prison labor camps and keep all the north koreans starving on the cannibal side of the yalu river.

When republicans talk about the hate-america first crowd, they're talking about the people bitching about this, and their claim isn't entirely without merit.

Re:NASA to China

[Anonymous Coward]

When Republican's talk about the hate-America first crowd, they're talking about anyone who's not Republican.

Re:NASA to China

[PD]

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.

Re:NASA to China

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I guess I wasn't clear. I was just throwing that out there to illustrate how much we give for how little we get.

I'm all for giving the shaft to the WTO, telling them all to go fuck themselves. To get MFN you have to not only be a country in good standing, not illegal arms transfers, no funding terrorists, maybe things like first amendment rights, and you can't have any trade barriers we don't mutually accept. Such as Japan requiring special motorcycle licenses for Harley's, or well all kinds of things for all kinds of countries.

If your not an MFN country, it's much worse, we use access to the largest market as a lever against your GDP. Much like how boeing sells planes. You want to sell in our market build a plant that produces such and such fraction. Something like how we handle the car companies, but far more draconian. If Wal*Mart doesn't like it,well, pardon my southern drawl but, dig Sam Walton up and have an illegal immegrant fuck his corpse in the ass.

What was said between the two countries?

[shiwala]

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)

Re:What was said between the two countries?

[kippy]

We grow tired of your insolence. Prepare for WAR!

Re:What was said between the two countries?

[meringuoid]

Of course, at this stage the USA would turn Fundamentalist, rush-build SDI Defense all over the place, and start invading people at random.

Hang on...

Re:What was said between the two countries?

[Anonymous Coward]

TURN fundamentalist???????

Diplomacy?

[Strange Ranger]

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.

Re:Diplomacy?

[aminorex]

Russia is a sleeping bear.

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

Re:Diplomacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this probably IS being handled diplomatically. China isn't some adolescent nation that will be won over by a little neighborly friendliness. Try that and Beijing will have you for lunch, not Shenzhou 5.

Taiwan will be a big issue here, but followed by many more issues. Dealing with China is not easy. China is a nation that's been screwed over hard by the West for a very long time and is looking forward to changing positions. If you just walk in fresh with an open hand, figure on getting your wrist broken.

The trick of course is getting to the point where we can be friendly. Like Doug Englebart pointed out, we're too stupid right now to solve conflicts without killing. We need tools to think with. Diplomacy, both kinds, hasn't been that great a tool, just all we've had.

Trying to change China's view on things is going to be a least as challenging as trying to change America's. (I like you guys, I really do, but this For Us Or Against Us bullshit has made it very difficult lately. The world ain't black and white and never will be.)

Re:Diplomacy?

[Suidae]

Trying to change China's view on things is going to be a least as challenging as trying to change America's. (I like you guys, I really do, but this For Us Or Against Us bullshit has made it very difficult lately.

Unfortunately too many of us are either too stupid to realize that nations should cooperation, or just don't care, and our leaders seem to think that having the biggest GDP is the most imporant. I think it means we should set some examples for international cooperation, so we can all succeed together.

no need for excuses

[demo9orgon]

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.

Re:no need for excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about protecting our huge investment of time and money, it's about safeguarding military secrets, it's about honor and respect for those that have made the ultimate sacrifice to further our knowledge of space flight. It wasn't a freebie to us so why should we just give it away? China is so fast to steal our intellectual property (and mass produce it) they forgot that it's illegal and went ahead and fabricated some hardware to match ours thinking we would be a pushover- next time ask us first. This isn't a game, space power will be more important than sea power in years to come. The reason you're not running anything at NASA is because you wouldn't consider the possibility of China using our own technology against us. Thankfully, the people at NASA and the people running NASA (US GOV'T) are very proficient at what they do, and they have considered this along with a few things I can't think of! This is'nt about being anti-China this is about protecting our own interests. Especially in the world we live in today, and what has happened to the U.S. with regard to terrorism we needed to set the standards to clear the air; you're either with us or against us! If you have to think about it to long, chances are the subject in question is against us.

Re:no need for excuses

[bruthasj]

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.

Re:no need for excuses

[Suidae]

Oh, grow up, we're all big kids now, we can drop the 'US vs. Them' attitude now.

Everybody work together now, thats good boys and girls.

Re:no need for excuses

[demo9orgon]

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 but I can understand the concern.

We don't face a military threat from China, we face an economic threat in the form of a trade deficit. There's a chance that the prices at Walmart will go up, and people won't be able to buy toys, some clothes, or Entertainment hardware for the low-low prices they are now. Something like OPEC necking down oil production. That's it.

The Chinese have had ICBM capability and have sold weapons packages for decades. We're in greater danger from briefcase nukes being sold in Turkey/any-stan/North Korea to terrorists (any flavor will do--just bandy about the virgins and a place in heaven with _diety_) who drive it in from Canada to any-town USA than we'll ever have to worry about from China.

I think we stand a greater threat of being left out of a bigger picture when they bootstrap their own technologies. They got to where they are now without NASA, and they'll leapfrog our "Oh no! It's too dangerous." Nancy-boy baby-steps approach to Space. The most important thing to remember here is that China produces parts for military hardware and systems which are used by every military power around the world. Nobody can underbid China for mass-production.

I guess they (NASA) have never heard ...

[ninewands]

"Hold your friends close and your (potential) enemies closer."

Re:I guess they (NASA) have never heard ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In an episode of Family Guy, Stewie acquires a foul ball at a baseball game and offers the kid next to him a trade. Something along the lines of "I'll give you this ball if you give me your bat." He then procedes to knock the other kid out with his newly acquired bat and steal back the ball.

"What did we learn?"

While it is good to keep potential enemies close, it is not good to hand them a bat, if you catch my drift.

Who cares?

[Tango42]

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!

[Doug Dante]

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?

Re:We Can Do It Alone!

[amightywind]

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

[cyclone96]

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".

Re:It's not NASA's decision

[Anonymous Coward]

So one of the first posters was right? Bush is an asshole?!? Hmm, I never made the connection.

Re:It's not NASA's decision

[Suidae]

I think Bush's advisors are smart enough to realize that we don't yet have a solid enough relationship with China to give them info that could be used against us.

After we establish a better relationship with them, and can be fairly confident that they aren't going to turn on us, then we can give them that info.

Politicions are sneaky bastards by their nature, so they have a hard time trusting anyone. We have to give them some time to figure out how they and their counterpart sneaky bastards over in China can both make themselves look good/get rich by cooperating.

Fascinating.

[DerekLyons]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:China immature?

[Suidae]

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.

Democracy and East Asian Policy

[Tiro]

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.

Taiwan is not a Friend.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the threat posed by Taiwan.

Can someone please clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any validity to the claims in the parent's "threat posed by taiwan" link? It seems to go counterintuitive with everything I've learned about China-Taiwan relations... Claiming that Taiwan is a spy for China and steals military secrets? Also, I never really learned the whole scoop about the Tibet thing... on my map Tibet IS part of China. If anyone could please clarify it would be greatly appreciated

Re:Can someone please clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no need to clarify. The facts speak for themselves.

Look back at the web site indicated by the grandparent article. It cites reputable sources like "The Washington Post". You have two choices: either believe the story by "The Washington Post" or don't.

So

[ColaMan]

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!"

Espionage

[Detritus]

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.

+Russian +plane +emergency +landing +Alaska

[Chibi Merrow]

Here

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.