Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Willing To Team With China; Rumors of a Budget Cut

Posted by kdawson on from the let's-dance dept.

eldavojohn writes "2009 has been an interesting year for NASA — from a new strategy to even closer ties with an old enemy. So it's perhaps no surprise that NASA has publicly stated that they are ready to team up with China. NASA Chief Charles Bolden said, 'I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor. I think they're a very capable nation. They have demonstrated their capability to do something that only two other nations that have done — that is, to put humans in space. And I think that is an achievement you cannot ignore. They are a nation that is trying to really lead. If we could cooperate we would probably be better off than if we would not.' While the budget of the China National Space Administration is a fraction of NASA's, partnering with them has been considered since 2008. In possibly related news, rumors are circulating of the Obama administration cutting NASA's budget by ten percent for fiscal year 2011 despite the success of Monday's Atlantis launch. Considering the Augustine panel's recommendations, such a cut could halt US human space flight for a decade."

33 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. You're doing it wrong by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need China as competitor, not a partner. We need some sort of 'gap' to get the ignorant hordes* all worked up so they'll pay for it.

    *Congress

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:You're doing it wrong by jimbolauski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering China owns 10% of our debt ($800 billion) I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    2. Re:You're doing it wrong by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. And the statement that China is trying to be a leader is misleading. So what? They can try all they want. The real question is: do we want them to BE a "leader"?

      And, as long as their government is structured as it is and behaves as it does, I say the answer to that is no. In fact I think a space partnership with China would be disastrous for the United States.

    3. Re:You're doing it wrong by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

      Somehow I don't think the Chinese are crazy enough to try and blackmail a nuclear armed state. It would hurt them as much as it would hurt us anyway. In the long run it might even be worse for them, as it would bring their economic growth to a screeching halt.

      What pisses me off is that we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have on health care "reform" that isn't and hundreds of billions more on invading countries that never attacked us but we can't find the money to fund NASA. The last round of serious investment into space exploration brought us cheap microchips, GPS, satellite photography, etc.

      Fucking shortsighted stupidity.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:You're doing it wrong by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People make such a big deal out of China owning the US debt. They do so to act as a currency reserve because historically (meaning over of the last 50 years) the US has had significantly lower inflation and instability than most other nations. But the primary reason the Chinese have purchased US debt is identical to the reason the Japenesse continue to invest billions of Yen in the Debt, and that's to keep the US dollar artificially elevated.

      These governments are intervening and unbalancing currencies to artificially keep the dollar high and cause imports to be cheaper in the US to wipe out US industrial production. Eventually the market will correct, but because of the intervention the correction is going to be much sharper than had it been allowed to happen naturally. Once the dollar drops to reflect the actual real value of the dollar US exports will rise and the system will re-balance but the pain level for the US consumer is going to be very very high. But we can't compete when we allow foreign governments to manipulate the value of currency to keep it high. Currency manipulation is a serious issue with China, it should be the top priority of any negotiations with China.

    5. Re:You're doing it wrong by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A political race is unsustainable. If we were to enter another 60s style space race, we would spend incredible amounts of money to do more flags and footprints and then sputter around for 40 or 50 years afterwards, again.

      While Apollo was an impressive feat, I can't help but wonder where we would be now if we had stuck to an Eisenhower-esque slow and steady approach, and not gotten drawn into the space race. It certainly would have taken longer to get to the moon -- we might just be getting there now. However, we would be doing so in an affordable way, with an eye towards long-term missions, science and development. I think slow and consistent is better than massive rushes followed by 40 years of sputtering about.

      The problem with Apollo is that it was run at a rate that history has shown is about 4 times higher than is politically sustainable without an external threat. Since this was the beginning of the Space Age, NASA assumed that the gravy train would go on forever, since there was no evidence otherwise. They never learned how to do things right within a small budget. This is why we're currently where we are. Vehicle design is always seeking an absolute perfection rather than a balance between cost and capability. The constant rallying cry is 'if only we had Apollo-level money again.' Perhaps most importantly, efforts to privatize the low-risk parts such as LEO transport is like pulling teeth, since the huge federal cost-plus contracts from the Apollo era are still massive employers.

      Personally, I welcome the idea of cooperation. Sharing money, technology and development is the best way to make use of limited budgets and speed up frontier development. Competition is a great short-term motivator for politics, and can encourage efficiency in the long term. However, cooperative ventures are much more sustainable in the long-term, and competition in the free market sense only makes sense for developed technologies such as LEO transport, not the "Lewis and Clark" role that the government should excel at.

    6. Re:You're doing it wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference between Japan and China is that Japan DOES buy from us. Lots. China only buys resources. In fact, we have MANY things that they need. For starters, pollution control from most of the western nations. Yet, they are wanting us to GIVE THEM the tech. With China sitting on 4 TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS, they should be buying this and dropping their pollution and even CO2 emission. But, they do not. Japan wants to win at 2 way trade. China is in a cold war with western nations.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:You're doing it wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might want to start to do some buying of that anti pollution tech yourself. Last time I checked USA refused any commitment to lower its pollution at all and was the biggest polluter in the world.
      First, you have it wrong. America is one of the cleaner countries in the world. And in terms of GDP and square km, we remain towards the top of that clean list. CHINA remains at the total bottom of the POLLUTION LIST.
      Secondly, I am guessing that you are thinking in terms of CO2. Well, China surpassed America in terms of total CO2 emissions in late 2006. And they have accelerated even faster. They currently add 1-2 NEW 500 MW COAL PLANTS EACH WEEK WITHOUT ANY CO2 OR POLLUTION CONTROL. OTH, America adds one ever couple of months (actually, I think in the last year, we have added only 1-2 new coal plants) and these have most of the pollution controls and even have ways to lower CO2 emissions.

      If China wanted to hurt the US it would start shifting its dollar. It isn't a stable currency anymore anyway. The only thing that keeps it alive are foreign investments and that the OPEC trades its oil in $. No one in their right mind seriously thinks the US could even touch China military wise. You are thin stretched as it is fighting some small 3rd world countries. I guess the situation with the oil producing countries isn't that clear, you seem to be picking fights with those who don't want to follow your lead anymore.
      The dollar has been hurt BECAUSE of china tying their currency to it. And that is starting to do some major damage to Euro, the yen, Canadian dollar, Australian dollar, Mexican peso, etc, etc, etc. As to 'touching china military wise', did I suggest that? Nope. That is your demented thoughts. I thought that we were insane to have elected W the first time. I was opposed to our invasion/occupation of iraq (and backed by my posts).
      I really hope the world will, some distant time in the future maybe, refuse to pay the debts of the USA. All the money you spend without possessing it does not come out of thin air you know, wouldn't other countries stabilize your currency (read: Pay your debts) you'd completely fuck yourself by just printing more money as you do now.
      Oh, China and japan are the ones buying our debt to force their money lower against the dollar as well as ALL OTHER FREELY TRADED MONEY. Unless you come from China, or from one of the many 3'rd world countries that have their small money fixed against ours, you will find that when we go into bankruptcy, it will have devastating effects around the world. As it is, America bailed out EU numerous times, and other countries around the world. Each time, America absorbed not just the costs, but the impact of those. When we go under, the western world will not have the ability to absorb that. And china has ZERO desire to do so. As it is, they are far more interested in gaining control.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:You're doing it wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Per-Capita has to be one of the WORST ways that I can think to rank it. Just look at Kyoto. It is a TOTAL JOKE. Even now, every nation involved in it is working hard to cheat at it, rather than just do the right thing. Also, just because a nation decides to not control their population should not mean that others should pay for it. Instead, it should be seen as efficiency of GDP AND the size of their state (i.e. tonnes per sq. km). With this approach, the CO2 AND GDP can be easily measured.

      Also, in terms of efficiency of CO2 per say $1000 GDP, China is at the absolute bottom. That is related to the fact that they are cutting corners on everything that they can. And if we look at the idea of just CO2 per-capita, then we are all screwed. Nations will cheat on the ppl count, and more importantly, you will find that if everybody on the planet emitted at the level that China CURRENTLY emits it, it will be MORE emissions than we currently do. Worse, China is working to NOT control their emissions. They keep saying that they will lower it, but they do not want to commit to it. Of course, many nations, including CHina, simply break their treaties.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:You're doing it wrong by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. A better way would be funding NASA at Apollo levels, continuously. We most certainly have the money, and always did. The problem was that we decided instead to waste it on other things, namely "defense".

      For instance, NASA had several other moon missions planned, which were cut even before the first one flew, because their budget got cut in the mid-60s. Why? The Vietnam war. Where would we be now if we hadn't wasted all that money in Vietnam, and kept NASA properly funded instead?

      Remember, one common figure is that for every $1 spent on Apollo, we got $7 back in our economy due to all the technological spin-offs, like GPS, printed circuit boards, etc. Spending on space exploration is an investment in the future, not a sinkhole for money like most wars (especially recent ones) are. If we want to stay ahead technologically, we need to invest a lot of money again. If we don't, we're going to be surpassed by those who do. You have to spend money to make money.

      Even now, we have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA. The problem is that we're wasting it all in Iraq, Afghanistan, on "cash for clunkers", on bailing out rich bankers who made bad real estate investments, etc. None of those things are going to get us any return on our investment. Space exploration will.

      We could easily fix our economic woes by ending all these money-wasting schemes and wars, downsizing our military (such as by closing the 100+ bases in foreign countries), quadrupling NASA's budget, ending the failed "war on drugs", and then returning the leftover money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes, which will spur more economic activity. Heck, we could even create a healthcare system for not much money that would take care of everyone's health needs, but it would require many things that monied interests won't like: eliminating bad doctors, reducing malpractice insurance and litigation costs, eliminating health insurance companies, etc. The problem is that NONE of these things will be done, because the powers-that-be don't want it, since it would end the gravy train for many people who are living large off our corrupt and bloated system, and our politicians work for them, not for regular Americans.

  2. Am I missing something? by proslack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like a fantastic way to supply China with even more classified advanced US technology.

    --


    Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
    1. Re:Am I missing something? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like a fantastic way to supply China with even more classified advanced US technology.

      Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50's. It's not like there's any major secrets, and if there is, we simply don't include those in designs, doing it the older way. Plus, they probably already have Soviet designs, which have proved more reliable than our stuff. In fact, many of our satellite rockets use engines purchased from Russia.
         

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Am I missing something? by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just a slight clarification, in todays dollars the Apollo program cost $300 Billion. It also caused the microchip to be invented along with hundreds of other game changing inventions.

    3. Re:Am I missing something? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      in todays dollars Apollo program cost $300 Billion. It also caused the microchip to be invented along with hundreds of other game changing inventions.

      The microchip was invented before Apollo. Apollo did inject funds into the industry when few other manufacturers seemed interested, I will agree.

           

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Am I missing something? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50's. It's not like there's any major secrets

      Actually, there are. Not so much military type secrets, but trade secrets and proprietary processes. Rocketry is still very much an art, as everyone from Armadillo to SpaceX is discovering. We haven't had that many design generations, and total flight experience is pretty low overall.
       

      they probably already have Soviet designs, which have proved more reliable than our stuff.

      That's what the urban legend would have you believe - but it's utterly false. The difference in reliability between American and Russian vehicles is statistically insignificant. (And the Soyuz capsule in particular has the questionable tendency to break just enough to ride the ragged edge between survival and loss of crew...)

    5. Re:Am I missing something? by Comatose51 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Compared to how we've helped them by deporting this supposed "Communist" rocket scientist, this is going to be peanuts.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  3. Chinese requirements by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny
    • Communication with the space ships has to be filtered by the Great Firewall.
    • All flights are done with cheap Chinese copies of NASA rockets
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:Chinese requirements by lazylocomotives · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the Chinese are spending a lot of money on an (extremely interesting) adaption of the RUSSIAN Soyuz. The Soyuz missions have lost 4 Russian cosmonauts over 120 missions while the US has lost, what, 14 astronauts over 120 missions to the ISS? It's a little strange that NASA is suddenly saying this I admit, but I wouldn't be so quick to make fun.

    2. Re:Chinese requirements by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      • All flights are done with cheap Chinese copies of NASA rockets

      Actually I think that is one of the main problems of today's space programs. Especially NASA's.

      They are so hung op on the quadrupal redundant, 99.9999999999% safe and fail-proof flights that the costs to achieve such goals are way out of balance with the goal that needs to be achieved.

      Fuck the almost 100% guarantee that nothing can go wrong
      I'll settle for 90% if that means 10x more exploration.
      Yes, rockets will explode, astronauts will die. So what? All in the day's job...

      "there is a small chance you might die on your next mission, sign here please"
      Not much difference compared to joining the army or something alike.

      --
      Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    3. Re:Chinese requirements by lazylocomotives · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As far as I know, there's not REALLY such a thing as a reusable spacecraft - they CALL it that, but really what they mean is that they can keep replacing its parts and such, which is pretty costly anyway. If I remember right, NASA has spent way more on the ISS and such, anyway. It's actually kind of ridiculous when you think about it! Don't take my word for it though, I'm pretty much just a kid with a strong interest in this stuff - I'm not an expert (yet!).

  4. Why not team up with Russia? by JoeSchmoe007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not to diminish China's achievement, but Russia is definitely way ahead of them or anyone else. Plus AFAIK China's space technology is mostly licensed from Russia. Is politics getting in the way? Well then doesn't it make even more sense to team with Russia since they are now significantly "less communist" than China (even if mass media may not reflect that)?

  5. Don't be ridiculous. by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As if we have any classified advanced US technology China doesn't already have.

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  6. There is a solution by downix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are NASA engineers which have the solution, which can work even with a reduced budget. They call it DIRECT. Rather than sink tens of billions into R&D, they adapt the existing Space Shuttles systems into a launch vehicle. The Shuttles R&D costs were paid for decades ago. The new systems are well within the realm of "relatively simple" as far as rockets go. It could be ready within a few years, and can operate within even a reduced budget realm.

    The alternative is to modify the Department of Defences EELV vehicles, Delta and Atlas, but we all know how much the DoD likes having their babies played with.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  7. Re:Sure by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lets outsource national defense! Much higher opportunities to cut costs there.

  8. Stereotype Obligatory by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    The problem with Chinese missions is that you feel like going back up just a few hours after landing.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  9. Re:we should team up with Canada and Mexico by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Canadians are always prepared to give a helping hand in space programs.

  10. Re:Just 10%? by NoYob · · Score: 2, Informative

    The unmanned exploration is mostly useless. Nobody other than soil scientists care whether the crust of Mars is 27.6% silica or 27.7& silica.

    Hogwash. A good remote-bot sample-return program could cover more areas than humans for roughly 1/4 the cost.

    Thank you. That's right. Unmanned exploration gives you the biggest bang for the buck.

    The GP talks about white collar aerospace welfare program, which is exactly what I think whenever I see an ISS story. Exactly what has that given us with regards to science or engineering?

    How about a mission to an extrasolar planet? Or even the outer reaches of our solar system?

    Folks talk about sending people out there, usually over some fantasy based on Star Trek, but the thing is, if we start just sending folks out without really knowing what is out there, we'll be not only putting folks at needless risk, but we'll also be putting money and other resources at risk. When I say risk, I mean needless risk. Risk is inherit with any human activity, but we shouldn't be sending folks out there willy nilly and without a stated goal other than putting them out there for the sake of having manned space flight.

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  11. Re:By all means by sconeu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Follow up.

    OK, According to NASA, there were 18 Shuttle/Mir missions. However, none of them occurred prior to 1991. Therefore ASTP was the only Soviet-US joint mission.

    US Manned Space Missions from 1961-1991:
    * Mercury - 6
    * Gemini - 10
    * Apollo - 11
    * Skylab - 3
    * ASTP - 1
    * Shuttle - 44 (per Wikipedia)

    Soviet Space Missions from 1961-1991 (per Wikipiedia, includes ASTP): 66

    That gives 141 missions. So out of 141 manned missions before the fall of the Soviet Union (your timeframe: "during cold war"), exactly 1 (or 2, depending how many times you count ASTP) were joint.

    Would you care to explain how 1 out of 141 is the norm?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  12. Re:Real Danger is avoiding rockets by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If we extended Apollo instead of bolted for the weird shuttle, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. And probably fewer dead astronauts.

    Apollo had one loss-of-crew accident in about 13 flights. That's about 7%.

    Shuttle had two loss-of-crew accidents in about 125 flights. That's about 1.6%.

    So, what's the basis for believing we'd probably have fewer dead astronauts if we'd stuck to Apollo?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  13. More info on budget cut rumors by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FYI, it's not a directed budget cut towards NASA -- every single non-military agency has been told by the Obama administration that they may see cuts of 5-10% in order to reduce the deficit.

    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/11/17/sharpening-the-budget-cleaver/
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBr0LFXMFF1HE6-n_ZTN1829QS1QD9BUTPVG0

    On the plus side, if there is in fact a budget cut, it'd hopefully be the cover NASA needs to shut down/reduce its politically well-guarded Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), which uses up a huge part of NASA's budget, but due to its chronically incompetent management has spectacularly failed in basically all of its large projects over the past 30 years.

  14. Re:By all means by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is however a lot of tech that can't be weaponized, the shuttle for example isn't going to be used as a fighter plane any time soon (in fact most of it's design principles are the opposite of those used when designing fighter planes). Cooperation on non-military parts of the space mission wouldn't be hard, let them put a few scientists on the ISS, etc in exchange for funding and cooperation in other areas, try using the carrot instead of just the stick

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  15. Re:Do we really want the Chinese in space? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

    All they're going to do is put lead in it...

    Well, how else would they become the leading nation in space?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  16. We won't just sell the rope,but the rope machinery by bobvious · · Score: 3, Informative

    China will do exactly what they're doing with the rest of industry... they make deals provided they do some manufacturing in China. They lift every secret they can, then open their competing industry. Of course their competing industry is well on its way. Remember, they have more honor students than we have students, and they're outproducing us in engineers around 9 to 1.