U.S. Losing Unofficial Space Race, Congressmen Say
By Larry Wheeler
FLORIDA TODAY
posted: 31 March 2006
11:33 a.m. ET


WASHINGTON - Some congressmen believe the United States and China are in an unacknowledged space race that this country could lose if it doesn't spend more money on the civilian space program.

The communist nation's military runs its manned space program, employs an estimated 200,000 workers and has set a goal of putting an astronaut on the moon by 2017.

By contrast, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is a civilian government program with a limited budget that directly employs fewer than 20,000 civil servants and has lost the commanding lead it once held over the rest of the world in human space exploration.

"We have a space race going on right now and the American people are totally unaware of all this," said Rep. Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican whose district includes Johnson Space Center near Houston.

The theme, which is not new, emerged again Thursday at a Capitol Hill hearing where lawmakers were quizzing NASA Administrator Mike Griffin about the Bush administration's budget request for the space program.

This time, though, lawmakers sounded as if they might be willing to do more than just talk about the issue.

Griffin was asked to produce in 30 days an unclassified report to Congress containing an assessment of the Chinese space program and its goals.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee with NASA oversight, said he would hold a hearing on the subject to coincide with the report's release.

Griffin acknowledged that China's new Shenzou spaceships are capable of supporting a crew on a round-trip mission to the moon.

But their Long March rockets are not powerful enough to get them there, he said.

The United States has neither a crew vehicle nor a rocket capable of making a moon run.

The shuttle is designed for low Earth orbit only.

NASA has begun work on a lunar Crew Exploration Vehicle, but it won't be operational until 2013 or 2014 because of budget constraints, Griffin said.

Its new heavy-lift rocket won't be ready until even later, he said.

NASA's timeline predicts the new rocket and crew vehicle will be ready for a mission to the moon in 2018, a year later than the Chinese target.

The U.S. space agency is known for missing planned deadlines for major projects.

"We need to do more," Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Indialantic, said.

Griffin said NASA's new lunar vehicles and rockets could be delivered sooner if more money is made available, but he added that he's not advocating such a change.

DeLay indicated he's willing to push for more money because the stakes are so high.

"We had a 40-year lead in space and we're giving it up," he said. "The U.S. is quibbling over $3 billion to $5 billion. It's amazing to me."

The China space-race discussion was touched off by Rep. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican who in February participated in the first U.S. government delegation visit to China's remote space launch facility.

"The American people have no idea how massive the China space program is," Kirk said.

The first-of-its-kind, behind-the-scenes tour revealed a modern high-tech facility that would be the envy of NASA employees, some of whom still work out of buildings more than 40 years old, Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, told FLORIDA TODAY in February after participating in the China tour.

View: Full Article | Source: Space.com

well we better get going

Well with the money the US government is having to pour into the Iraq war and the reconstruction of New Orleans I wouldn`t be holding your breath for a major increase in NASA's budget.

we are definatley not losing. Hmm, who has had a man travel to the moon over 25 years ago? The US of course

They mean NOW.

The USA could put a man on the moon 30 years ago, they can't do it now and that is the point. It doesn't matter that you won the last race, that doesn't make you champion in the next one.

Having said that I don't believe China is likely to overtake the USA any time soon in spaceflight. Although they have launched 2 manned spaceflights China is only managing a manned flight every 2 years.

I suspect that the "America is losing" message is being put about to justify an increase in NASA's budget. This was exactly what Americans were told in the Apollo era (although there was a lot more truth in it then). Judging by the response of shikon1 it will work.

i didnt say lets increase NASAs budget, they should have enough money right now to get back up there before china

In real terms NASA does not have the huge budget that it had at the height of Apollo. The manned return to the moon will be hugley expensive (especially as Bush has said that NASA should then look to putting men on Mars). There are only 2 ways that NASA can do this, either a budget increase or a huge cut in it's other projects. Sadly it is the second option which the US Congress has decided on meaning that NASA will have to cancel many of its projects.

With what we spend in one year in Iraq, we could go back to the Moon and on to Mars.

An "unofficial" space race, eh?

The term defines some individual's (or some group of individual's) perception, and that's about all. It would seem rather meaningless on the surface, especially since that group is "some congressmen".

If it is true that the Chinese have somewhere stated a goal of putting a man on the Moon by 2017, I would say that is at once wishful thinking, and again meaningless as pertains to some perceived "race".

It is somewhat meaningless because China's manned space program is already 14 years old, and they took 11 of those years to launch their first manned orbital mission. They recently completed their second, a 4 1/2 day two-man earth orbital mission. These things the United States did in 3 years and 6 years respectively, and that was 40 years ago.

The Chinese program plans to execute a space walk by 2007 and rendezvous and docking by 2009-2012. The United States accomplished these essential steps toward a lunar landing by 1966...also 40 years ago.

There is a long step between doing these things and landing men on the surface of the Moon, which will of course require a spacecraft to do it (which they do not have yet), and the propulsion capability to boost the craft to the Moon (which they also do not have).


Now, there is talk about the Chinese Shenzou spacecraft being able to support a crew on a round trip mission to the Moon. This is only because the craft is designed to be capable of executing a mission of the proposed duration required for such a flight, but that too has not been demonstrated through flight testing. The U.S. Gemini craft was also capable of supporting such a mission, as was demonstrated by Gemini 7 in December of 1965, almost 41 years past. However, there's a vast difference between a circumlunar flight and a lunar landing mission.


The author of this article makes a mistake when he states that NASA "has lost the commanding lead it once held over the rest of the world in human space exploration".

We lost no such thing. Human space exploration we did hold a commanding, in fact an insurmountable lead in, until we ended it in 1972. No human space exploration has been done since. There was no lead to hold onto after Apollo. We held it, we won, and the race ended.


Additionally, since there was an acknowledged space race between the United States and the Soviet Union, and since we had taken a decided lead in that race by the mid-1960s, and had won it by 1968, one wonders, why is there a need for another one?

Even if (and that's a BIG if) the Chinese manage to land a man on the Moon by 2017 (and given the lack of booster, and the modified Russian technology they're using for their fledgling earth orbital program, it would seem unlikely...since the Russians have never been able to produce a successful heavy lift booster), so what? We did that 37 years ago.

And the Chinese will do nothing but land there, maybe collect some rocks, and shove off, hoping to return sucessfully, which we also already did...six times. When the U.S returns, even if it's a year or so later, we will explore in long duration missions, utilizing modern technology based upon already proven and reliable hardware.

The Chinese are a very long time away from doing anything like that. If they execute 6 manned lunar landing missions, totalling an equal number of hours of lunar surface time as we did during Apollo, and before we return to the lunar surface, we could legitimately say that the Chinese caught up...albeit 45 years after the race ended. But, as I say, the actual race ended decades ago, and was between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., so this is all rather silly banter.


Thus, I think all this talk about an alleged race to the Moon is absolutely ridiculous.

MID, I agree on, the whole, with what you are saying but there are some parts of your post I disagree with.



Not true. Energia flew twice successfully. It was never continued with for economic, not technical reasons.



This is only partly true. The reason there is talk about Shenzhou being capable of of carrying out a circum-lunar flight is because it is derived from the Soviet/Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Soyuz was designed for lunar missions and flew several unmanned circum-lunar flights as Zond.

You also make the assumption that a heavy lift (Saturn V class) booster is necessary for a lunar landing mission. This is not the case. A lunar vessel could be assembled in earth orbit using the boosters already available to China. A tug unit, a lander and a Shenzhou could be docked in earth orbit using 3 Long March launches. America looked at such a system for Apollo but rejected it in favour of using the Saturn V. America will however use a similar technique for returning to the moon. The lunar lander and boost stage will be launched separately to the manned CEV. (Incidentally although Shenzhou is derived from Russian designs the Chinese rocket systems are indigenous so the lack of a Russian Heavy Lift vehicle is entirely irrelevant).

I think the point of the article, overlooked by an enthusiastic if misplaced sense of pride for past accomplishments, is that the US is, and has been in a state of complacency about our role in space exploration.

China is a very formidable economic power and also has the ability to use resources without worrying much about whether the populace is in agreement.

Whether China goes to the Moon or not is a moot point. That they are developing their space program is the true point. Granted, the US acheived minor miracles 40-50 years ago considering the technology of the day. The technology available today, available to the Chinese as well, will make future efforts at exploration even more successful in the near term.

The issue is simply this:
If the US does not make more of a commitment to space, we will be left behind.

It seems that some in America are once again worried by the prospect of a red flag flying on the moon. In reality if America is to lose it's lead in spaceflight it will be to Russia and Europe.

America is currently re-inventing Apollo. The rockets to be used in the programme will be based on 25 year old shuttle technology using 40 year old Apollo engines.

Russia on the other hand is developing Kliper. This is a re-usable mini-shuttle which will have it's first flight around the same time as America's CEV will get off the ground. The European Space Agency is considering becoming a partner in the Kliper project. Both Russia and ESA have plans to land astronauts on the moon.

China has more to prove in space travel than the U.S. does.

^^^
We also have more to lose.

Does anyone really lose?

That depends on whether this is made into "Space Race II". The USA is going to the Moon. China is going to the Moon. Russia and Europe are probably going to the Moon. There are two options, compete or co-operate. If competion is chosen there will be winners and losers, but the biggest loser will be science. Also if there is a race it is more likely that corners will be cut leading to the deaths of astronauts. If resources are pooled then everyone can win.

^^^
Yes, if we are not a part of the leading edge of exploration we would lose much. The advancements that the space program have brought to us would not be as readily available if a country such as China were making the important discoveries. That would lead to them having a technological edge over us that would be unacceptable.

As long as we(U.S.) have a free society with free thinkers and common interests, making new discoveries and technological advances should not be a problem. It has worked so far.

I fail to understand how China advancing in spaceflight is in any way detremental to the USA. What discoveries can they possibly make that the US couldn't also use? The Space Race in the 1960's was symbollic. The real technology race was military. If the moon programme had actually been for science then it wouldn't actually matter who got to the moon first. Instead it was made into political statement. America (and the Soviet Union) spent a fortune on a programme that ultimately turned into a dead end and saw just one scientist walking on the moon, The same mistake must not be made again. A return to the moon must be for the right reasons, science, not some political "Reds under the bed" xenophobic political reason.

^^^
Just a quick example. Our experience in space flight was of great use in the development of our missle and missile delivery systems. Do you think that China would be keen to share new tech like that with us?

Actually the US the Soviet Union and China all developed their civilian launchers from rockets developed for missiles not the other way round.

^^^
But the true advances came from space tech.

Nations buried in debt with almost no heavy industry and a massive third world poverty population do not do space races well.
This is the United States of today. The United States of the 1960s is dead and gone.
If USA wants to go to space in a big way it has a lot of repair work to do at home first.

That is a myth. The true advances come from the un-told billions poured into military research. Computers, for example, did not advance hugely because of the space programme, they advanced because of the need to decipher enemy codes.

Military advances, by there very nature, frequently need to be kept secret. A space race, as occured between the Soviet Union and the USA, is a very good way of showing off your technological prowess without actually showing your military capabillities. For example the Russians developed the N1 rocket for the moon programme America developed the Saturn 1, Saturn 1B and SaturnV launchers. What was the military use these vehicles, none at all. The military were developing things such as submarine launched nuclear missiles and cruise missiles.

I am of the opinion that when computers made it in to the homes of the civilians is when they became much better. Private industries , in order to market music , video , and games required giant leaps in technology. Then the Military and the Government had to catch up and found that they could do many things only dreamed of in the 60;s , 70,s and 80,s.
I Recently had visited a Government Agency office and was astounded to see the office people working on 10 and 15 year old computers. And they hate them.

I was speaking in respect to Apollo days, when the Soviet's failures in large booster technology lost the moon race in 1969 (The catastrophic N-1 failures).

In regard to the Soyuz situation, I am aware the Soyuz is capable of the lunar mission. But the point is, having a spacecraft that is ready for a lunar mission is only part of the painstaking process of executing the entire mission.

You are correct in that EO assembly is a method to avoid the necessity of the heavy lift booster for a lunar mission. However, that requires the development of a great deal of additional hardware and expertise: space manufacturing methods, EVA capability, and of course, rendezvous and docking, which the Chinese have yet to attempt. They are in their infancy in space travel mechanics, and have a long way to go.

I do think, however, that with the previous experience now available to them as a textbook, of sorts, their progress may be much faster than one might expect.

The Saturn V was one of several options for the lunar landing. However, assembly in EO was not seriously considered. We considered direct ascent, EOR and LOR methods, the latter being chosen because it was cheapest, and would probably result in the fastest return...which of course it did.

America will use an EOR technique for return to the moon, which surprizes me. However, this is not assembly in orbit, per-se. The vehicles will essentially be assembled on the ground, and EOR will be used to execute final matings and trans-lunar injection. I think you may be referring to earth orbital renezvous prior to trans-lunar flight as opposed to assembly in orbit (one of von Braun's early lofty ideas which never met fiscal muster)...

I think...if what has recently been said by the President, and seems to have been confirmed by the NASA budget, is in fact true, then the U.S. is on the road, finally, to return to space exploration. If that is really the case, then it seems a commitment has been made. That being the case (I hope), they will succeed, and will not be behind anything. They're already way ahead.

I would take exception to the idea that the there is a complacency about space exploration. The problem has been with manned exploration. That has been a dead issue for every nation since December 1972. But the U.S. has led the way with space exploration ever since. The people at JPL have far and away gone well ahead of anyone in that effort in the past decades.

This is not an overlooked matter. It has long been a source of profound frustration that the United States, the American people, and their Congresses and Presidents, have not continued what was started in the 1960s. Perhaps now, that is actually going to change...

Another point.
There is no misplaced sense of pride for past accomplishments as pertains to Apollo. Apollo was the greatest technological accomplishment in human history. The people who were involved with that should rightly be proud of their accomplishments. How such a thing could be referred to as misplaced is beyond me.

The U.S. is refining Apollo, which only seems reasonable since Apollo was the only sucessful lunar landing program.

The rockets used in the program will be based upon CURRENT and highly reliable shuttle SSME technology and CURRENT SRM technology, which is not 25 years old. No 40 year old Apollo engines are in use anywhere, and will not be used. The lunar landing vehicle will be utilizing a completely new engine utilizing methane as a propellant. The CEV will be re-usable, and modifyable for extended missions, as well as being solar powered.

The basic shape of the thing is Apollo, but that's because the original designs of Max Faget have never been topped anywhere in the world. So, we stick with a good thing when we know we have it...which we do.

The Crew Lauunch Vehicle will not use SSMEs but will use modified Saturn Ib and Saturn V J2 engines known as the J2X (see this NASA press release). This is a new version of a 40 year old engine. The CURRENT SRM technology you are talking about is a lengthened version of the shuttle SRB which first flew in 1981 and was modified after the Challenger accident in 1986. That, by any calculation, is a design more than 2 decades old.

As of 2006 plans called for the spacecraft to be launched on a booster built around a modified version of the shuttle's external fuel tank. The launch vehicle will be developed between 2010 and 2018. Propulsion could consist of five Space Shuttle Main Engines, and larger versions of the Solid Rocket Motors. Some variants could carry a payload of 125 tons into Low Earth Orbit, nearly equal to the Saturn 5.

This is the heavy lift cargo vehicle which will launch the lunar lander but not the manned CEV. The lander and the CEV will dock in earth orbit. I believe (but I'm not 100% sure about this) that the shuttle engines (SSMEs) are being dropped in favour of the J2X on this launcher as well.

And that may well change too, as the process of examining the alternatives is still ongoing.

But the point is that in my car, I have an engine that is "new". Yet, it is essentially based upon the same technology as the engine I had in my car 15 years ago. It's an improvement on a tried and true design. The J2X is not a J-2, but an improved, "new" engine based upon something that worked, very well...just as the SSME is the very same thing.

That is how things progress. It is not a 40 year old engine. It is based upon a 40 year old engine which worked perfectly. It will be brand new when and if it is built. We build things which make improvements on proven designs of the past. That's the process of continuous engineering.

You are picking at points that are irrelevant to the actual issue at hand.

The point was that America will build another highly reliable space exploration vehicle, as we have in the past. We have the experience and the success. Other countries do not have any experience or success in such endeavors. This of course does not mean they won't succeed, but we have a decided advantage in the process.

If we didn't build upon known reliability, then, we'd be in a similar position to everyone else. Fortunately, we are not.

Possibly but the SSME will not be used. It is just far too expensive even in a "downgraded" non-reusable version. It is far too complex to be manufactured cheaply.



No, it's an improved "old" engine. The model T Ford had a reliable engine (for it's time) but you would raise your eye brows if Ford were to dust it down and modify it for use it in their next generation of cars.



If you read over my posts you will see that what I was saying was that America is not in danger of losing it's lead to China. However at a time when the Russians are finally moving forward to a new generation of spacecraft America is taking a step backwards to the Apollo era (albeit in a modernised version). If America is to lose it's lead (and in certain, relevant, areas such as research into long term effects of spaceflight on a human the USA does not have a lead) then it will be to Russia.

The Russians have the decided adantage in using proven, reliable hardware. Their Kliper will use the latest Soyuz launch vehicle, a vehicle which hasbeen in service in one form or another since 1957 but has progressed in a slow but logical manner. What holds the Russians back is not technology or know-how but finance.

You seem to think that Apollo was reliable. There were only 15 manned Apollo missions (including Skylab and ASTP). A crew was killed before it ever got off the ground and another 2 crews nearly killed (Apollo 13 and ASTP). When you look at Apollo objectively it was less safe than the shuttle.

Many see the CEV as the programme NASA should have carried out after Apollo, with the shuttle having been a 25 year dead end. I partly agree but I also think America may regret losing some of the capabillities the shuttle offered.

The problem with the CEV and the CLV that will launch it is that they are political decisions rather than logical engineering ones. Several of the proposed designs for the CEV would have used existing launchers (such as the Delta 4 Heavy or the Atlas 5) as the launcher. This would have been an option which far better fits your idea of building on proven, reliable technology. What's more ot would have been cheaperto man-rate these launchers than to build a totally new one. So why didn't NASA do this? NASA has to play a political game. Had it chosen the option to modify an existing launcher for the CEV then it would have led to job cuts at the shuttle manufacturing sites, Michoud for the External Tank, Morton Thiokol for the SRBs, Rocketdyne for the SSME (they will also make the J2X) and so on. By choosing the CLV and heavy lift designs that used the maximum shuttle derived technology NASA chose designs that would reduce job loses across many satates. THis makes it far more likely that the Congressmen for those areas would vote for the new CEV programme. The CEV as proposed is, in my opinion, not the best solution either for NASA or for the American tax paying public but a necessary compromise to get the CEV of the ground. If America ever does lose it's lead in space it will be the result of polatics not technology.

I don't like to reply on US political subjects usually..... But, this post could verywell be trueful. Space travel should be a big deal to the US govt. America spends too much on the WAR, but now that they've started WAR, it will be a long one. And with America being an absolute power on the UN front, and military powerhouse, why not start WAR. The US can never "fully" be out of Iraq, even after the new American style Iraqi democracy is developed.
But more related to the subject... A Dr. Francis Kafi Abiew, political author, told me that China was reported to be secretly increasing it's military and wealth. And, by 2015 would emerge with its power, to the world view and be prepared for anything US throws its way. This is an easy accomplishment for China, considering it's extreme lieniency on pollution laws, amoung other things, where investers from all over go there and pump whatever smog they want in the air. It's all money to china.

- yes... i can see china's space program being more advanced, or better funded than americas in the future. But the fact that congressmen said this, means America and its hardheadedness, will likely prevent this from happening.

I don't think China is making much of a secret of it's military and economic aspirations. It's budget for manned spaceflight, however is a fraction of that of the USAs. It is averaging one manned flight every two years. China may very well land a man on the moon one day but I expect to see it's flag along side that of the USA, Russia and the European Space Agency. It is my hope that it will be a joint project (at least with the US, Europe and Russia). The more the polictics and rivalry can be removed the better the chances of getting some real science done.

I may have said that America is taking a step backwards but to be fair it is taking a step backwards to a point that no one else has yet reached.

The J2X is not a J-2, but an improved, "new" engine based upon something that worked, very well


No, it's an improved "old" engine. The model T Ford had a reliable engine (for it's time) but you would raise your eye brows if Ford were to dust it down and modify it for use it in their next generation of cars.


I think you've missed the point, and are arguing something that is a non-issue. Almost everything is an improvement on an old design. The Model T engine's basis is the same as the engines of today. One could not in any way call today's engine the same as that one, yet, today's engine is based upon the same principals. Our new CEV looks like Apollo on the surface, because, as I've said, that's simply the best design available, but there's little technological similarity between the CEV and the Apollo CM. It's a new vehicle, improving on the old, and vastly changed in many areas. It can most certainly be called "new".

You seem to think that Apollo was reliable. There were only 15 manned Apollo missions (including Skylab and ASTP). A crew was killed before it ever got off the ground and another 2 crews nearly killed (Apollo 13 and ASTP). When you look at Apollo objectively it was less safe than the shuttle.

On the contrary, I know the Apollo CM was reliable. It successfully carried out every mission it was assigned to fly without any injury to anyone who flew in one.

The Apollo 1 spacecraft killed three men on the ground prior to an Apollo flight. The Block I spacecraft was then eliminated and the Block II improved upon and made flight ready. The Block II CM flew all the missions, and never had a major problem.

Apollo 13s problem was an improperly wired oxygen tank in the Service Module. The CM performed extremely well in that mission, powering up after being completely shut down, and then executing its task perfectly in returning the crew safely to the earth.

ASTP's crew was not in any way nearly killed, and the problem on descent was a crew mistake which temporarily allowed noxious RCS fuel to enter the cabin through the vent-valve. No one was seriously injured in that event. In any event, the CM performed remarkably well and was 100% successful in doing its job.

The shuttle, on the other hand, has killed 14 people. Demonstrated failures of the system, the engineering, and most-importantly, the management paradigm which NASA entrenched itself in post Apollo.



The CEV as proposed is, in my opinion, not the best solution either for NASA or for the American tax paying public but a necessary compromise to get the CEV of the ground. If America ever does lose it's lead in space it will be the result of polatics not technology.

And so was Apollo such a solution. I think it's always been about money and politics. I also agree with your final statement.

I just wish all countries would realize that once were in space this planet is very small. It would make tons more sense for nations not to compete against each other but develop along side each other in order to streamline a well working spacecraft.

Perfectly sound logic, I would say.
Amazingly, humanity just can't seem to get to that point. If more people had actually travelled beyond low earth orbit, and saw what the Apollo lunar crews saw, it might well be a different world.

There is an interesting article on this subject on The Space Review web site.

A very brief summary of some of the conclusions of the article:

• Most of China's efforts in space are geared towards practical purposes rather than scientific/exploration.
  
• China is playing catch up. It's current plans to improve China's space capability, for example a heavy lift vehicle, will mean that China will be aiming to reach a point by 2015 that the USA and Europe are already at.
  
• China's Lunar Exploration plans, for the next decade, are all based on un-manned spacecraft.
  
• China's space programme does not pose any threat to America's supremacy in space.

Source: Space Review - China, competition, and cooperation

I think the US has lost before the "race" even started. According to who, well this seems real enough:

Genius of China


http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID...mp;whichpage=20

How true is our loss??

Hi starban and welcome to the site.

I feel I need to point out a couple of things to you. Although not strictly against the rules "necroposting", that is resurrecting a long dead thread, is generally frowned on unless their really is something new or important to add. This thread had been inactive for around 16 months.

Another thing that is frowned upon and certainly can be against the rules is off topic posting. In this case your links to the history and inventions of China have nothing to do with the subject that was being discussed and do not belong in this thread or for that matter in the Space News forum.