Chinese Space Ambitions

[g.w.]

Here's a news item from Spaceflight Now that falls into the category of "How Much Should We Worry About the Chinese"?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0303/04china/

Food for thought!

[g.w.]

Here it is, seven months later, with the Shenzou mission over and a rousing success.

And maybe a success in more ways than one. The Army Command and General Staff College's "Space News" digest noted that The Washington Times reported on 17 Oct 03 that the Shenzou capsule not only carried its own optical imager (1.6-meter resolution) but that the mission released a separate remote sensing satellite. This less-publicized aspect of the mission, if true, raises questions about its purpose. Why keep it a secret unless it's military-related?

Assuming, then, that "civil" and "military" space are so intertwined in the Chinese space program, what do their forays into space mean for US national security? Is this a play for prestige on the internal Chinese stage, or on the world stage?

Does anyone foresee another "space race"? If so, how might it be different from the race we ran against the USSR?

[g.w.]

And now, over a year later, from CNN.com:

-------

"Small Satellites a Big Deal in China"

"China, which put its first man in orbit last year, has built a national engineering and research center for small satellites, paving the way for large-scale production, state media said on Wednesday.

"The centre had a designed production capacity of six to eight small satellites a year, the People's Daily said.

"'It is the largest small satellite development and experiment base in the world at present,' Xinhua news agency quoted an official with the centre as saying.

"Last month, state media said China planned to launch more than 100 satellites before 2020 to watch every corner of the country.

"A 'large surveying network' would be set up to monitor water reserves, forests, farmland, city construction and 'various activities of society,' it said.

"The new complex, on the northwest outskirts of Beijing, consisted of a design base and an assembly, test and experiment centre, Xinhua said.

"'It will strengthen the cooperation with foreign and Chinese institutions, promoting the industrialization of micro-satellites,' the People's Daily said.

"China regularly sends research satellites into orbit and in October last year became the third nation successfully to put a man in space.

"China and the United States held their first space cooperation talks this month, planning a series of exchanges.

"The meeting signaled an acknowledgement the United States cannot afford to ignore China's ambitious space plans, after initial reluctance to recognize its achievement in sending former fighter pilot Yang Liwei into space in October last year."

-------

Once again, I toss out the bone. These developments don't comfort me.

[Gray Rinehart]

Yesterday the Chinese confirmed their anti-satellite test, the details of which should silence everyone who thought we wouldn't have to worry about a direct-ascent ASAT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/world/asia/23cnd-china.html?hp&ex=1169614800&e n=d9317a9a60f6aebb&ei=5094&partner=homepage (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/world/asia/23cnd-china.html?hp&ex=1169614800&en=d9317a9a60f6aebb&ei =5094&partner=homepage)

Previous articles on the Chinese ASAT test are here,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/asia/18cnd-china.html?hp&ex=1169182800&e n=1cccc5a239b55188&ei=5094&partner=homepage (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/asia/18cnd-china.html?hp&ex=1169182800&en=1cccc5a239b55188&ei =5094&partner=homepage)

and here,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/world/asia/22missile.html?ex=1327122000&en=fef 48ee12cf368e7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/world/asia/22missile.html?ex=1327122000&en=fef48ee12cf368e7&e i=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

The Chinese say they don't want to participate in a "space race," but methinks their actions say otherwise. And let's not forget that the Chinese are trading partners with states whose interests are very different from ours. What if they decide to sell their ASAT system? It would be interesting to know how many missiles they've fitted with the system, what infrastructure they need, how difficult they are to deploy, etc., to know if proliferation is a major or minor concern.

Are we prepared to face potential enemies with the ability to shoot down our satellites?

[Gray Rinehart]

Speaking of silencing "everyone who thought we wouldn't have to worry about a direct-ascent ASAT," isn't it nice to know we can muster the same capability when we need to?

[Gray Rinehart]

Yesterday the Chinese launched their latest manned space mission (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0809/25shenzhou7/), set to include their first spacewalk.

And on an even more interesting front, WIRED reported that the Chinese Say They're Building [an] 'Impossible' Space Drive (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html).


Chinese researchers claim they've confirmed the theory behind an "impossible" space drive, and are proceeding to build a demonstration version. If they're right, this might transform the economics of satellites, open up new possibilities for space exploration –- and give the Chinese a decisive military advantage in space.

The drive is called an "Emdrive" (i.e., "electromagnetic drive"), and is supposed to work by directing microwaves into a "resonant tapered cavity." If it works, it would revolutionize satellite station-keeping propulsion -- providing low thrust for long periods without using fuel -- and the British inventor seemed to indicate it would scale up to larger engines as well.

I remember a group of Chinese engineers being very interested in one U.S. company's ion thruster, and asking for design parameters that were outside the scope of the U.S. company's authority to export. As the technology security monitor at that particular meeting, I refused the request. With that experience in mind, I'll say that the inventor's quote about U.S. interest in his theory being stymied by an export license from the U.K. to the U.S. doesn't sound quite right.

At the same time, I'd be interested in what my old colleagues at the (former) Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory would say about all this.

[Gray Rinehart]

According to Spaceflight Now,


China deployed two research satellites early Saturday in a super-secret launch from a space center in the northeastern part of the country.

Link (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0810/25china/)

[Gray Rinehart]

First, I commend to you this story -- China's Close Call (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122539460905385099.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) -- about the Chinese Shenzou-7 space vehicle coming within 45 km of the International Space Station, just a few hours after it released a small, maneuverable companion satellite. It sounded like a tactical exercise at the time, and still has that flavor a couple of weeks later.

But today's item comes to us from New Scientist: China denies attempting to get US space data (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16074-china-denies-attempting-to-get-us-space-data.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news). The story relates how Shu Quan-Sheng, a physicist born in China but now a naturalized US citizen, pled guilty to illegally exporting space technology to China: specifically, data on space launch vehicle technology.

This piqued my interest because I was a space technology security monitor for almost 3 years in the Defense Technology Security Administration. The NS article was heavy on Chinese denials, but light on their previous shenanigans (although it did link to an article with a list of a few previous items). Yet all they had to do was Google "Cox Commission Report" and downlink the report file to learn about previous activities in which China obtained launch vehicle technology from U.S. corporations.

[Gray Rinehart]

As reported in Business Week (and brought to my attention by Bill Romanos (http://twitter.com/BILL_ROMANOS)) (emphasis added),


In its report, the China security commission examined the implications of China's pursuit of dominance in cyberspace and outer space. The panel asserted that the Chinese have sought both military secrets from U.S. government networks and lucrative proprietary information from American corporations. The advantage that China has gained from this espionage could reduce current U.S. conventional military dominance in any future conflict, the commission said.

An example of Chinese espionage cited in the report involves an incident in 2005 in which Chinese cyber-burglars downloaded files about the propulsion system, fuel tanks, and solar panels of NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, an incident with details similar to those described in the BusinessWeek story on secrets stolen from NASA.

The full article is here (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2008/db20081121_440892.htm).

China's efforts to obtain militarily-significant technology were part of what led to the formation of the space technology monitoring function of the Defense Technology Security Administration, of which I was a part from 2001-04. It doesn't surprise me to see that they're still at it. (For a literary reference, I refer you to Robert A. Heinlein's THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, with its mentions of Chinese "monkey copies" of other technology.)

They certainly seem determined. Are we concerned enough?

[Gray Rinehart]

That's right, folks: a Chinese MILITARY space station. Not a Chinese module on the International Space Station, not a Chinese civilian, scientific space station, but a Chinese MILITARY space station.

Here's the story (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0903/02chinastation/), complete with images of the model unveiled during Chinese New Year celebrations.

And here's what we have in the works: .

Looks as if we're giving up the high ground.

[Gray Rinehart]

So, 8 months after we found out the Chinese were talking about a military space station, their "air force commander Xu Qiliang said it was imperative for the PLA air force to develop offensive and defensive operations in outer space," according to this news story (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gDrce4fjESD3cLHgo-KPFYvINfpA).

Reading the article, it sounds as if they may have started thinking in terms we've been using for years. This will be interesting.