Hacker News Reader

Comment by vermontdevil | Hacker News Reader

Awesome. Too bad US freezes China out in working with NASA on space exploration. I think we all should partner up despite our political differences.

View on HN

China doesn't exactly play nice with others. Even other tech companies have almost given up on working with China. When you deal with them, it is a one way street. What would the US get from any partnership with China besides China stealing any technology they could get their hands on?

If everyone were working together, it wouldn't be stealing. I don't steal someone's software when I fork a project on github, and they don't steal mine when they accept my pull request.

That's like asking what the value of sharing is. China would provide funds, equipment, astronauts, etc that could be partially shared - like with the ISS. Note that the U.S. doesn't have to turn over source code or detailed designs to share stuff. Also, soon, China will develop original technology that others do not yet have (or already has?).

I'm not sure I agree. While there are obvious benefits to cooperation, competition has benefits too.

I think the best cooperation is in terms of emergency rescue, backup communications, and sharing scientific results.

Emergency rescues mean compatible docking systems to that if an opportunity arises technical problems don't stop the rescue. Of course actually catching something in space in time to pull off a rescue is nearly impossible, but just in case the orbits line up...

Emergency rescue also means that moon/mars missions should plan to land ~10km from each other - while the area of exploration is greatly limited it means in the worst case you can walk to the other for safety. It also means a party in the middle one day - moral is itself an emergency.

Backup communication means that radio frequencies are compatible. That way "our relay can't reach our rover" can turn to "but we can - let us control it".

The USSR and USA started cooperating in the 1970s and this has had very good results. For example being able to get to the ISS after the Space Shuttle accident, and arguably in easing political & military tensions. They continued to compete as well.

> very good results

with diminishing returns. Post-Apollo funding was/is but a shadow of NASA's glory days. As soon as the military interest is gone, it's inevitable that a program will lose financial support.

> with diminishing returns

Let's see. From the start of Space Age, October 4th, 1957, to the peak of NASA funding in 1966 - almost 9 years. To the last Apollo flight to the Moon in 1972 - a bit over 15 years. Advancements: unmanned space flight, manned LEO flight, manned flight to the Moon and back (overall manned flights ~43, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights ).

From the Apollo Soyuz Test Project in 1975 to today in 2019 - 44 years. 3 times as much. Advancements: expanded unmanned space flight, permanent manned LEO outpost, reuseable vehicles (Gemini, STS, TKS, EB, X-37), commercial space flight, international space cooperation (overall manned flights ~270).

Per dollar modern space flights are quite competitive with 1970-s. Manned spaceflight is also safer than it used to be. Per unit of time... Mars flights are quite more robust, but Venus is kinda forgotten. Outer Solar system objects are visited more frequently... Russia retracted from unmanned spaceflight... India, China, Europe are growing...

I don't think funding is the only criteria here. In some aspects Apollo project catapulted humanity to the higher frontiers which are hard to keep, but some other indicators point to steady progress everywhere with way more sustainable longer term approach.

Competition between the USA and the USSR produced the first orbiting satellite in Oct, 1957 and a man on the moon, twelve years later, in July, 1969. The USSR gave up on Space tech and so did the USA so that we couldn't land a man on the moon if we wanted to 50 years later. If the USSR had continued on to try and go to Mars we would have been there decades ago. Only with Elon Musk's vision for a Mars colony and his company SpaceX, is space technology advancing again. He also has stated that he hopes for some competition as he knows it can really push people to excel.

Competition between the USA and the USSR also produced thousands of nuclear ICBMs... but I get your point that space tech development was faster. It's slowed but hasn't stopped and everyone has far from given up. I think we have to use our money & brainpower rationally - especially given the many threats we have on Earth - whereas competition and egos often go against this. For example, I think a manned colony on Mars in the next decade is definitely possible but would be an epic waste (what would it achieve?) - IMHO we should first develop far more advanced robotics, self-replicating machines, etc - to build a proper base before sending humans over.

Please keep in mind that space exploration has always been rooted in and primarily (for better or worse) funded as a result of military applications. It's simply not possible to fully dispel that conflict of interest, at least not for the foreseeable future of world politics.

I have long said that the real reason for the international space station is to give Russia cover to keep their space engineers working. That is unemployed ex-soviet space engineers are are vulnerable to evil dictators offering them a job designing ICBMs (when you have no money/food moral considerations are less important)

That was part of it though I think space engineers would never have been unemployed or out of food - just reassigned to much more boring projects. Russia also has ways of ahem "discouraging" unauthorised trade of military secrets.

With China's ICBMs, aren't they already advanced enough that collaborating on space exploration with NASA won't teach them much ICBM technology that they don't already know?

I think the ICBM utility has been played out. The new concern seems to be defense of space in and of itself. Exhibit A: Fearless Leader pushing through the Space Force creation. New field, new theater of war, new way to line defense contractor's pockets.

I disagree. I don't think we should partner up. I think we should compete. The US, China, EU, India and possibly even Japan are wealthy enough and the first 4 is populous enough to explore on our own.

I think we should share our discoveries and knowledge, but we shouldn't be partnering. If we really want space exploration, competition is what is going to drive it.

Do you know why NASA doesn't partner up with China? Because it sounds like you think those political differences are insignificant.

They should be... sadly, the political reality often gets in the way of idealism.

It's currently illegal for NASA to work with China. There's been a line in the NASA appropriations bills for the last 5 years or so saying none of the money they're receiving can be used bilaterally or in cooperation with China

That describes the mechanism, not the rational.

How about working with Taiwan? I think they too have a space program, although I have no idea how big it is.

"The 'One China' policy is not a card on the bargaining table," said Paul Haenle, a former China director at the U.S. National Security Council. "It is the table itself."

Speaking of significant political differences, NASA has been partnering with Russia and nobody seems to have a problem with that.

It's not necessarily the case that nobody has a problem with it, it's just the status quo, and the front lines of most political issues are on one side of the status quo or the other. The "don't work with China" side would push across to "stop working with Russia" if they had the strength to.

On the other hand, this has resulted in something very good. Our (U.S.) space program has been err, lacking, for the last 45 years so it's not like there would have been much benefit to partnering with us. If China, or any other country, wants to take the leadership role we've abdicated and show the world how to do a space program, more power to them. And who knows, it might even give us the push we need to get back out there in a serious way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com