While I'm a big supporter of international co-operation, remember that the US has been striking a number of technical deals with India, as a part of a long-term political investment in bringing up a large democratic power to balance China. I think this has as much to do with that goal as it does with sharing technical information.
that and our current "partner", Russia, isn't so reliable anymore. This can be simple acknowledgment of who else will be a viable when it comes to space exploration and exploitation.
Anyone who pays attention to international affairs knows that the US has been seeking a rapprochement with India; Prime Minister Modi just had his first meeting with President Obama the other day. Meanwhile, the US has been at odds with China over its ballooning territorial claims in the South China Sea, to the point of possibly terminating the ban on arms sales to Viet Nam. I don't think the GP needs to provide citations for such easily acquired current affairs knowledge.
Opinion: Anyone who pays attention to international affairs knows that the US has been seeking a rapprochement with India
Unconvincing evidence: The President met with the President of India. Mr. Obama also met with the mayor of Gary, Indiana yesterday.
It is easy to acquire incomplete current affairs knowledge.
You are attributing the United States motivation to counter China to claims to the South China sea. I can think of dozens of other sources of friction between these countries that also contribute: human rights, intellectual property protection, hacking of US government computers, hacking of US corporation computers, influence in SE Asia, influence in Africa, claims in the East China sea, support of North Korea, support of Iran, support of Assad, climate policy, trade imbalance, nuclear proliferation, etc.
But, some claims in the South East China sea are the reason the US is partnering with India on the space program? Not supported by facts.
Why pollute Hacker News with unsubstantiated opinions or worse half backed (more like 1/128 baked) analysis?
Rubbish. You're trying to apply thesis standards to informal conversation. It would be one thing to critique if the original commenter had built a complex theory on an invalid premise, but jumping down someone's throat over the lack of supporting data in a two-sentence comment is overdoing it. My allusion to some current facts is not meant as a complete causal description either, but merely as examples of current news coverage.
I'm all for fact-checking, but HN is not Wikipedia, in the same way that current affairs coverage does not and need not substitute for a history book.
Exactly what are you getting at here? If you have a problem with the fundamental point in the GP post, why don't you just say it? We all know that international relations are complex, and a quick summary will necessarily ignore, gloss over, or oversimplify many issues. It's still valuable when we'd like to get an idea of what's going on and why in a paragraph, instead of reading and writing hundred-page reports citing thousands of sources.
Sure it does. This political context is highly relevant.
Why do you think NASA is collaborating with ESA and ISRO but not China? Well, NASA is prohibited from bilateral projects with China due to a law passed by the US Congress in 2011:
There are many reasons for this situation, so trying to reduce it to democracy vs. not has resulted in a lengthy and inconclusive exchange (seen nearby). But whatever the list of reasons, this international political context is highly relevant to the collaborations that are currently workable.
I wouldn't go that far. Naritai offered a possible motive for this deal which might not be obvious without the context provided by his/her comment (the part about the recent technical collaboration is true, and not just an opinion). That's one of the useful functions of internet comments.
I have a dumb question. What's a large democratic power, and how does it differ from China? I'm not implying China is in any way democratic, but rather inviting someone to further explain what the goal of the US is.
Is it likely that this is simply empire expansion rather than an altruistic goal of balancing China? Mainly I'm just wondering what the concerns might be if a large democratic power (and I'd still like to know what exactly that is, and how it differs from other modern powers) isn't brought up in the region.
Forgive my ignorance. I probably should have taught myself these things long ago rather than invested all of my time in programming and other pursuits.
Also, just to clarify, I am aware of the textbook definition of "democracy," "republic," etc, but it seems like those names are more of a flag for people to fight under than a definition for a state of being in the modern era. So I'm quite curious to understand the issues at play here.
I am aware of the textbook definition of "democracy," "republic," etc, but it seems like those names are more of a flag for people to fight under than a definition for a state of being in the modern era
You seem to be assigning moral equivalence to democracy and Chinese communism/totalitarianism.
If you aren't just trolling, then differences include the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to read the internet uncensored, and the right to vote.
I'm referring to the US government's 'us vs. them' attitude towards the countries that it defines as democracies (the 'free world'), and the countries it defines as dictatorships (including China).
I am aware the truth is significantly more nuanced than that, but in my post I'm interpreting the motives of the US government, not my personal take on the matter.
update: pdx's comment does a great job of providing a deeper explanation.
More like there are a billion of them, and I'm sure they see us as morally inferior, just as you see them. I'm here to understand the issues and make my own decision.
Haven't you ever wondered about something that you knew nothing about? How would you learn about it other than reading and asking questions? I have no idea how you concluded that I might be trolling, especially after I both admitted ignorance and asked to be cut a break for it.
Regarding your list:
- Right to travel: There are many people from China living in the US. Do you have more info about this point? I don't understand how their right to travel is restricted.
- Right to free speech: If you were to try to start a new news organization to compete with CBS/Fox/etc, the organization wouldn't get very far unless it had a clear political agenda and was funded by supporters of that agenda. I'm interested to hear about what it's like in China in comparison to the US.
- Right to read the internet uncensored: There's no debate on this point.
- Right to vote: Candidates seem to be elected based on how well-funded they are. Or rather, no one votes for an underfunded candidate, so these are equivalent. Again, I am interested to hear about China's system, and why it's morally inferior in comparison to this.
Thanks for your time. I realize I probably sound pretty dumb here, but I'm here to learn, not to defend my position. In fact, I have no position. Only questions.
> More like there are a billion of them, and I'm sure they see us as morally inferior, just as you see them.
My wife is urban mainland Chinese, with no particular political or social axe to grind. She's not some dedicated protester or anything and nor are any of her family, one of whom is a government official. From personal experience I can say many, and probably most ordinary Chinese are perfectly well aware of just how appaling, venal and corrupt their government and political system is. They're patriotic and would fight for China as a nation against any foreing power, but they're not totally ignorant or stupid.
Right to travel - The Hokou system in China restricts country people form accessing education, health care and social services in cities where they dwell. Even if they were born there! Most cities have hundreds of thousands of country people living in them with no actual right to be there whatsoever. People not of Han ethnicity face severe bureaucratic problems exercising rights Han Chinese take for granted. It's not official, but it happens.
Free Speech - There are publications espousing every possible political or religious belief that can scrape together the cash in the west, not so in China. Speech on the internet counts, in China it is not free. Western publications are routinely banned.
Right to Vote - True democracies have more than one political party, and it is possible for the party in power to change. You may have noticed this actually happened in India very recently. It also happened here in the UK at the last election, and in the USA the election before last. In fact the current president of the USA is constitutionaly barred from even standing in the next election. These are manifest expressions of democracy actualy working before your eyes. The only reason marginal political groups don't get much representation is because they're marginal for a reason - people choose not to vote for them. The Chinese people have no such choice.
Very true, but how does that benefit the Chinese People? The only people it benefits are the other politically indistinguishable princeling oligarchs that want their turn at the top.
Your "Right to free speech" and "Right to read the internet uncensored" are quite closely connected. China actively restricts social media at a government / policy level much more aggressively than is done in western countries.
Regarding right to travel - there are problems in China with internal migrants not getting the rights that locals get. For example, if someone moves to a new city for economic opportunity then they may find it difficult qualifying for education for their children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system#Effect_on_rural_w...). There are restrictions on some government officials from travelling outside the country (e.g. http://www.scmp.com/news/china-insider/article/1367723/shaan...) - again these kinds of restrictions probably occur in some jobs in the west, but are less widespread. Similarly there are restrictions on some activists, which are probably more widespread in China - although one would want to be wary of the newsources on this as there is a natural bias.
In western democracies one of the main differences with the Chinese system is that there is significant communication effort around elections and attempting to educate people on the political system. There are parallels within the Chinese system but the western system involves a lot more direct communication. I am not saying one system is morally inferior to the others, but arguments can be made regarding the costs and benefits of the different systems.
Nobody claimed that the Chinese people are morally inferior.
Your example of comparing the challenges of starting a news organization to compete with the likes of Fox News to that of the censorship that has been going on in China for years seems to a stretch, to say the least. Same goes for your "right to vote" comparison.
I recommend you visit Amazon and pick up a couple of books on China if you are interested in getting up to speed on what is going on. Also, check out the events that have been going on in Hong Kong.
These questions are so basic they seem like either trolling or a back-handed way of expressing an opinion.
If, as your comments suggest that isn't your goal, then spending 30 minutes on wikipedia would be a better use of time than asking HN about Chinese politics.
I get the sense that you're approaching this as "neither system is perfect, so they are equivalent"?
In other words, since you could get shot by a cop in the US even though you did nothing wrong, that means American is no better than ISIS who massacres thousands of innocent civilians?
I would argue there are real, important differences in the points you called out as equivalent (or near-equivalent).
How about trying to answer the original question, instead of attacking a position you assume he holds, a position which, in fact, he explicitly states he does not hold? The question, for the record, was "What does the US government believe it stands to gain by ensuring a strong democratic power in the region, and what does it believe it stands to lose if it fails to do so?". Other replies seem to have had no trouble understanding the question. Tearing someone down for requesting information and opinions is not productive.
It was probably a terrible mistake to try to seek answers on a forum regarding political matters. Apologies.
I would argue there are real, important differences in the points you called out as equivalent (or near-equivalent).
Which points did I say were equivalent? I said no such thing. I was saying, "I have no clue what I'm talking about, and I have no clue what life in China is like, so please correct me."
But since I've said that multiple times and it's still not getting across, I think it's better for HN if everyone would just ignore my chain of comments.
I think the problem is partly that your question reads and functions a lot like trolling. Asking the difference between a democratic power and China is pretty strange in itself (the Chinese government famously drew this distinction pretty clearly when it killed hundreds of people for advocating democracy in Tiananmen Square in 1989) — and then in the last sentence of your question, you seem to acknowledge that you do know the difference, but that you are ignoring it because you think they are just "flags to fight under." I don't know what your real intention is, but the comment is pretty weird and comes across as either trolling or a Glenn Beck-style "I'm just asking questions" argument.
Thanks for the feedback. It's extremely frustrating to try to ask innocent questions on HN, especially with the influx of people who enjoy lording themselves and their own personal expertise over people who have admitted ignorance and are here to seek knowledge. Given my lack of knowledge, the only way I can hope to try to formulate a precise question is to "throw myself out there" and attempt to do so. That, of course, results in stupid questions and statements, but that was the entire point: to correct the stupidity and not live with it.
> It was probably a terrible mistake to try to seek answers on a forum regarding political matters.
Well, that's probably true, since politics is a mindkiller. :)
If you want to understand current foreign policy of the US, I recommend reading history, rather than politically aimed books or essays. History books and essays will often have political aims as well, but the slight remove from the present day introduces somewhat more consensus, and understanding how the world got to the current situation will inform your political understanding more evenly than reading a lot of posturing for one political position or another, in my opinion.
I don't have specific recommendations, since most of my history reading, sadly, was in the twentieth century, and I don't remember titles that had a strong foreign policy element. However, one suggestion would be to go through college course listings, such as http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/history/ , and drill down to the readings for a strong list of books.
Substitute "large democratic power to balance China" with "large power to balance China", and I think it makes more sense.
U.S. foreign policy seems to be to hinder the expansion of other large powers in an attempt to keep them small enough to not be an existential threat at some point in the far future.
You send money and aid to whom ever is in a position to hinder those who are growing too powerful, whether the group you are sending that money and aid to is democratic or not.
This is not about right and wrong. It's about long term strategy, aimed at preserving the status quo for as long as possible. If you hinder your competitors, that keeps them from becoming even more of a threat to you.
I had written something similar but you put it much more succinctly. The only things I'd add to this explanation
1) Democracy is the US rallying cry, our allies are more defensible when we do so in the name of democracy.
2) The powers that be are highly adept at manipulating a voting population so making an ally a democracy will likely turn it into a predictable/manipulable Plutocracy of sorts.
*fixed implication that India wasn't a Democracy, was simply stating a motive for the "Democratic" part of "Democratic Power"
I just want to remind everyone that India is already a democracy and has been like that ever since her Independence from British colonialism. In general, I can understand the speculation that US is pushing money to India to balance China. US's perception of India has changed recently after their unsuccessful collaboration attempts with Pakistan. But in this particular case, I think the successful launch of a Mars orbiter at a budget price is a story that NASA would like to emulate too. I don't see political motivations behind this collaboration.
Something to note regarding recent US and Indian history - During the cold war, India supported Russia (Not much of real support, mostly supporting in words and buying technology from Russia in turn). So US ended up supporting Pakistan and China. Pakistan continuously tried different ways to discourage India's development.
Not sure if all that had any major effect on the cold war, but it certainly had serious repercussions in current Middle East wars and soured US relationships with India.
With China and Russia as a threat now, US may be trying to appease India to balance out the powers here. Plus India no longer closely associates with Russia.
Seperately, India is trying to stand up on its own feet with a strong economic growth and there is political and public will to support India's growth with the rise of Modi, AAP and the young educated/worldly generation.
> Plus India no longer closely associates with Russia.
I don't know how serious it is (I think some members consider it more important than others) but India and Russia are two of the five members of the BRICS group, so there's definitely still some degree of cooperation beyond just trading partners.
My read is that India was pushed to USSR's arms by USA's policy during cold war of, you either support us or you are our enemy. To hell with Non-Alignment. Who remembers NAM here.
Then USa goes, aaaahh, see your neighbour Pakistan supports us, so we are going sell them a sh1tload of arms and turn a blind eye to their N-weapon tie-ups with China and NKorea.
India had no other option than buy arms from USSR to balance out the Pak arms build up.
And hence the relation between India-USSR/Russia continues to this day. USA is getting a slice of the arms pie but the high cost of American arms hasn't helped to break the past ties.
Russia is still a huge partner in Indian military procurement. Whether it's the Brahmos missile or the T50 fighter, Russia still has incredible influence in India.
India is indisputably a democratic country, not withstanding its developing status or struggles with corruption; they just ran what is probably the largest general election in history a few months back, followed by a smooth transfer of power.
It's also large, because it has a population of 1.25 billion people, close to China's 1.36 billion people. And it's a power because it has nuclear weapons, although it is unfortunately not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Forgive my ignorance. I probably should have taught myself these things long ago rather than invested all of my time in programming and other pursuits.
Don't be obtuse. Not everything is code for something else. If you think the US's motives here are really empire expansion then fair enough - I don't really agree but I can certainly see why you might think so. But asking what 'large democratic power' means, without bothering to consider the possibility of it being a simple literal description, seems disingenuous.
The amount of nasty personal attacks I've attracted for the mistake of asking a question on HN has ensured I won't be making it again for a long time. Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, but that hasn't stopped you from calling me a person who is being obtuse and disingenuous. Did you ever stop to consider that I am ignorant of these matters, as I have said at least three times now? I don't know if you're having a bad day or what.
Imagine if I had asked a newbie programming question, after admitting to and apologizing for being a newbie programmer, and you'd responded as you did here. Would you be okay with that? Just because the topic is politics, suddenly it's totally okay to insult?
Anyway, thank you for the information. I hadn't heard of India's general elections and smooth transfer of power, so that helps clarify things for me. I appreciate it.
> I hadn't heard of India's general elections and smooth transfer of power, so that helps clarify things for me.
I wouldn't blame you.
Here in Australia there was minimum coverage. Its almost like the developed countries didn't want their public to know that some developing countries are doing well.
But I have seen Australia's main TV station ABC run NZ votes, Indonesia Votes, Thailand votes special. Didn't happen for India.
Funny trying to hide the actions of 1+ billion people :)
He means that India is a large (as in population, which is an indicator of possible industrial and economic power, military, etc) country that is a democratic country as well. That's important because democratic countries tend to align together, since public opinion matters and public opinion generally favours peace, especially against other countries that also generally want peace. So, the importance of India is that it could act as a counterweight to China in Asia. China obviously is an economic giant, but as a military power it is largely regional and has little ability to project force. A powerful India limits its abilities in Asia.
> What's a large democratic power, and how does it differ from China?
In this context, "large democratic power" refers to India, the world's largest democracy with over 1.2 billion citizens. Even the logistics to conduct fair elections for a populace this size are quite intimidating: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/ind...
Exciting news but is it an unqualified positive for both?
Sometimes Constraints are what drives breakthrough innovations.
India's ability to Manage Significant space exploration programmes on a Shoe string budget is driven in part by the need to innovate on a "ShoeString" budget. What we as a race desperately need is low cost access to Space - which perhaps may not become such a priority if NASA is allowed to influence ISRO.
On the other hand maybe ISRO will influence NASA & wewill get the best of both - super low cost missions with super advanced payloads :)
NASA had a "go cheap" program to try crazy stuff on a shoestring that just might work. There were good results like Pathfinder ($150M) which tried the crazy idea of landing using an airbag.
The problem is that the Powers That Be were not understanding about the failures inherent in trying crazy ideas out. So we went back to expensive spacecraft which were less likely to fail.
This is exciting but makes me nervous. India is re-imagining "space travel on a budget", but if all of a sudden they have to play by NASA's rules and standards, their ability to innovate at low cost might be hampered.
Hopefully whatever form of cooperation they come up with lets India continue to operate mostly independently.
I'm not disparaging the quality of India's space program. I'm more saying that once you bring NASA into the picture there's the potential of inheriting 70 years worth of engineering requirements and process which could be detrimental to a fledgling space program.
Edit: And you added the "NASA-level" which put words in my mouth that I did not say nor mean. I meant what I said: "NASA's standards"; standards that NASA has developed for their programs and contractors, which may or may not be beneficial for India's space program.
>>>> I'm more saying that once you bring NASA into the picture there's the potential of inheriting 70 years worth of engineering requirements and process which could be detrimental to a fledgling space program.
Indian space program was started in 1962[1][2]; and over a period of time ISRO has pretty much mastered technologies related to launch vehicles, satellites, science missions etc. This new joint working agreement pertains to following areas:
1) Mars exploration:
"The joint Mars Working Group will seek to identify and implement scientific, programmatic and technological goals that NASA and ISRO have in common regarding Mars exploration. The group will meet once a year to plan cooperative activities, including potential NASA-ISRO cooperation on future missions to Mars."
"One of the working group’s objectives will be to explore potential coordinated observations and science analysis between MAVEN and MOM, as well as other current and future Mars missions."
2) Earth observation:
"The joint NISAR Earth-observing mission will make global measurements of the causes and consequences of land surface changes."
"NISAR will be the first satellite mission to use two different radar frequencies (L-band and S-band) to measure changes in our planet’s surface less than a centimeter across."
Moreover, ISRO and NASA have worked together earlier as well. Few examples: ISRO's Chandrayaan-1 Moon mission carried NASA's scientific payloads[3]; NASA, NOAA and ISRO share ISRO's Oceansat2's oceanographic data[4]. So, I don't think this new agreement would be detrimental to ISRO's operations :)
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for adding 'NASA-level'. I did parenthesize it, though. Also, since 'standards' are usually intended to ensure quality, I assumed that you were implying that the Indian space program may not be up to it.
Aren't NASA-level standards historically slow and inefficient? I was of the impression that private parties streamlining that process and coming up with a cheaper program is what led to NASA (or congress by proxy, whatever) abandoning manned spaceflight to the private sector.
In other words, maybe India is taking a leaf from SpaceX's book rather than NASA's
> Aren't NASA-level standards historically slow and inefficient?
I've seen nothing that tells me that this reputation is anything more than 1) the bureaucracy inherent to any large organization, 2) requirements of very complex, cutting edge engineering and science, 3) requirements of engineering systems that must work perfectly the first time (unlike Facebook, NASA can't 'move fast and break things'), and perhaps most of all 4) the public's habit of attributing characteristics to 'the old established thing' (NASA) and to the 'new shiny thing' (SpaceX, etc.)
Name every place in the solar system where NASA missions currently are located. Outside the solar system? Where they have gone historically? Their achievements are staggering; history-making events are routine; they are by far the greatest explorers in the history of humanity. Certainly they aren't perfect and every organization can improve, but they do pretty well.
> I was of the impression that private parties streamlining that process and coming up with a cheaper program is what led to NASA (or congress by proxy, whatever) abandoning manned spaceflight to the private sector.
Manned spaceflight hasn't been delegated to the private sector, only flying to Earth orbit (or only low-Earth orbit?). NASA has been doing it for 50 years; the technology is mature enough that private companies can do it and NASA can invest its resources in bigger challenges, including a manned mission to Mars (in the long term).
NISAR is a very interesting mission from a technological point of view. It will have two radars, at least one of which gives 10m resolution, and they will be obtaining global coverage. The data rate is huge, larger than any Earth remote sensing mission to date (many TB/day).
Earth scientists are already having problems dealing with contemporary data volumes, and NISAR really raises the stakes.
I've been hoping for a while for more international cooperation on space exploration. Going to space is not cheap, and if several countries pool their resources, under ideal circumstances the result should be more science for everyone.
But politics has kind of prevented that. For governments, space exploration seems to be more about showing off than about advancing science.
I hope that in the future, different countries cooperating on missions will become the norm rather than the exception. I know I'm being somewhat optimistic, but this article shows I am not being completely naive. Nice.
I'm pretty sure there is a significant amount of cooperation when it comes to space exploration. Space missions often carry instruments from different countries. For example, the lunar probe that discovered water on the moon, Chandrayaan-1, carried instruments from different countries. Curiosity carried instruments from other countries too, if I'm not mistaken.
It's just that you don't read much about this in the newspapers, because newspapers would rather make it look like there's a space race going on.
I would consider technical collaboration in this space (pardon the pun) to generally be a great thing. Missions to Mars have historically been very difficult:
...it wasn't like NASA was about to do something huge and cooperation with India puts that goal at risk...
Your nested counterfactuals are a little hard to unpack, but if I understand you correctly, it is somewhat the contrary, at least with NISAR. (Oops, I added another counterfactual.) NASA was about to NOT do something huge and the collaboration enabled it happen.
That is, before it became NISAR, the Earth-observing biomass/seismicity SAR mission was called Desdyni (http://decadal.gsfc.nasa.gov/desdyni.html). This mission was referred to as desirable in a 2007 National Academies decadal roadmap (covering the next 10 years), but there were too many other even higher-ranked missions in the pipeline. So it seemed like Desdyni was not going to get on the NASA roadmap any time soon.
The Indian contribution seems to have (for the moment) been enough to get it going, because in February NISAR entered "Phase A" which is NASA-speak for "we are starting the mission". There are later decision points depending on how ready the overall concept proves to be.
"The ISS is incredibly more expensive, complicated, and accomplishes less science because it's "international.""
Accomplishes less compared to what? Skylab? Mir?
The ISS is designed to host up to 7 crew members. For purposes of comparison, Mir could host 3. What makes you suspect 7 astronauts can do less scientific work than 3?
Skylab was cheap(er) because it was launched in one single stage (IIRC it literally was a Saturn V cargo bay).
The ISS was designed to be built up over several years, over several launches, with each launch costing much less than Skylab but obviously more overall. It was a design decision that favoured amortizing costs for an age that couldn't afford another Skylab.
I wrote this on the WSJ comments several hours ago but it's worth repeating here. I believe that it would be valuable if the US invested more basic research money in India. We might be able to greatly increase our research output in the basic sciences. Start small then increase the budget as research in India matures.
Why do you say that? The techincal goals of this mission are fairly modest, and do not seem to bush the boundaries of launch technologry or involve technology that would be useful for human survival in space.
The agreement and mission are both good things, but I do not see how they will have much of an effect on human spaceflight.
As usual, action speaks louder than words. This co-operation would probably not take place if India's mission did not take place or very few would listen their Indian counter parts if such agreement were signed without the mission.
Why could they not have agreed to cooperate before NASA spent $650M on the Maven program which does the exact same thing that ISRO's $74M Mangalyaan does?
