U.S. Space Dominance Under Threat From China
First in a Series
by Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
The United States’ leading position in space is increasingly under threat from China’s surging space program, a new report to Congress warns.
“China views establishing a leading position in the economic and military use of outer space as a core component of its goal to realize the ‘great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,’ or the ‘China dream’—an ambitious vision to restore what Beijing views as its historical leadership role in world affairs,” according to the report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. [Full Report]
The commission’s 593-page annual report included a lengthy section about China’s military-run space program. The review found that China has:
- dedicated high-level attention and ample funding to catch up to and eventually surpass the United States and other space-faring nations;
- developed specific plans to dominate cislunar space economically;
- advanced its terrestrial geopolitical objectives, including the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) designed to develop economic and political ties with other nations;
- created an indigenous space sector through a military-civil fusion strategy;
- pursued aggressive state-backed financing to establish a commanding position in the commercial launch and satellite sectors;
- used Hong Kong-based companies to exploit legal loopholes and uneven enforcement to obtain export-controlled technology from the United States; and,
- fielded an array of direct-ascent, cyber, electromagnetic, and co-orbital counter space weapons capable of targeting nearly every class of U.S. space asset.
The report recommends that Congress direct the National Space Council to develop a space strategy that would include:
- a long-term economic space resource policy strategy;
- an assessment of U.S. strategic interests in cislunar space;
- an assessment of the U.S. Department of Defense’s ability to protect communications and navigation satellites;
- a space commodities exchange to ensure the U.S. drive the adaptation of international commercial standards;
- a plan to streamline and strengthen U.S. cooperation with allies and partners in space; and,
- an inter-agency strategy to defend space supply chains and critical manufacturing capacity.
The commission also recommended Congress direct the Defense Department to take steps to counter “China’s and Russia’s destabilizing approach to military operations in space.” The recommendations included:
- protecting freedom of space navigation and keeping lines of communication open, safe, and secure;
- strengthening the credibility of U.S. deterrence in space; and,
- ensuring that military space assets are designed to increase survivability, redundancy, reusability, resilience, rapid replacement, and disaggregation.
The report also recommended the Trump Administration actively participate in international institutions to shape policies and standards that advance the nation’s space interests.
The commission’s key findings, recommendations and overview of China’s space program follow.
2019 Report to Congress
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
https://www.uscc.gov
China’s Ambitions in Space: Contesting the Final Frontier
Key Findings
- China’s goal to establish a leading position in the economic and military use of outer space, or what Beijing calls its “space dream,” is a core component of its aim to realize the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” In pursuit of this goal, China has dedicated high-level attention and ample funding to catch up to and eventually surpass other spacefaring countries in terms of space-related industry, technology, diplomacy, and military power. If plans hold to launch its first long-term space station module in 2020, it will have matched the United States’ nearly 40-year progression from first human spaceflight to first space station module in less than 20 years.
- China views space as critical to its future security and economic interests due to its vast strategic and economic potential. Moreover, Beijing has specific plans not merely to explore space, but to industrially dominate the space within the moon’s orbit of Earth. China has invested significant resources in exploring the national security and economic value of this area, including its potential for space-based manufacturing, resource extraction, and power generation, although experts differ on the feasibility of some of these activities.
- Beijing uses its space program to advance its terrestrial geopolitical objectives, including cultivating customers for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), while also using diplomatic ties to advance its goals in space, such as by establishing an expanding network of overseas space ground stations. China’s promotion of launch services, satellites, and the Beidou global navigation system under its “Space Silk Road” is deepening participants’ reliance on China for space-based services.
- China is taking steps to establish a commanding position in the commercial launch and satellite sectors relying in part on aggressive state-backed financing that foreign market-driven companies cannot match. China has already succeeded in undercutting some U.S. and other foreign launch and satellite providers in the international market, threatening to hollow out these countries’ space industrial bases.
- The emergence of China’s indigenous space sector has been an early and notable success of Beijing’s military-civil fusion strategy. The aggressive pursuit of foreign technology and talent gained through joint research and other means, especially from the United States and its allies and partners, continues to be central to this strategy and to China’s space development goals in general.
- The Chinese government and military use Hong Kong-based companies to exploit legal loopholes and uneven enforcement in U.S. export controls to gain access to space capabilities which U.S. law prohibits Beijing from purchasing outright. Collaboration with foreign universities, including in the United States, is another important avenue in China’s drive to acquire space technology. Chinese students enrolled in foreign science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs are treated like employees of China’s defense industrial base, with defense enterprises regularly funding their studies in return for service commitments following graduation.
- China views space as a critical U.S. military and economic vulnerability, and has fielded an array of direct-ascent, cyber, electromagnetic, and co-orbital counterspace weapons capable of targeting nearly every class of U.S. space asset. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has also developed doctrinal concept, for the use of these weapons encouraging escalatory attacks against an adversary’s space systems early in a conflict, threatening to destabilize the space domain. It may be difficult for the United States to deter Beijing from using these weapons due to China’s belief the United States has a greater vulnerability in space.
Recommendations
- Congress direct the National Space Council to develop a strategy to ensure the United States remains the preeminent space power in the face of growing competition from China and Russia, including the production of an unclassified report with a classified annex including the following:
- A long-term economic space resource policy strategy, including an assessment of the viability of extraction of space-based precious minerals, onsite exploitation of space-based natural resources, and space-based solar power. It would also include a comparative assessment of China’s programs related to these issues.
- An assessment of U.S. strategic interests in or relating to cislunar space.
- An assessment of the U.S. Department of Defense’s current ability to guarantee the protection of commercial communications and navigation in space from China’s growing counterspace capabilities, and any actions required to improve this capability.
- A plan to create a space commodities exchange to ensure the United States drives the creation of international standards for interoperable commercial space capabilities.
- A plan to streamline and strengthen U.S. cooperation with allies and partners in space.
- An interagency strategy to defend U.S. supply chains and manufacturing capacity critical to competitiveness in space.
- Congress direct the U.S. Department of Defense to take the following steps to ensure it is prepared to counter China’s and Russia’s destabilizing approach to military operations in space:
- Ensure U.S. Space Command and any future space-oriented service are responsible for protecting freedom of navigation and keeping lines of communication open, safe, and secure in the space domain, as the U.S. Navy does for U.S. interests in the maritime commons.
- Strengthen the credibility of U.S. deterrence in space by fully integrating the space domain into policy, training, and exercises.
- Ensure that programs designed to increase survivability, redundancy, reusability, resilience, rapid replacement, and disaggregation of critical U.S. space assets receive continued support, including those programs ordered in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2019 Title XVI, Subtitle A.
- Congress urge the Administration to actively participate in international space governance institutions to shape their development in a way that suits the interests of the United States and its allies and partners and to strengthen U.S. engagement with key coalitional allies and partners in the space domain.
Introduction
At the highest levels of policy, the Chinese government is determined to meet ambitious goals for space leadership, and it has connected its space program with its broader ambitions to become a terrestrial leader in political, economic, and military power.
Beijing aims to establish a leading position in the future space-based economy and capture important sectors of the global commercial space industry through the use of subsidies to undercut foreign competitors, including promoting its space industry through partnerships under what it has termed the “Space Silk Road.” Some of these initiatives are already challenging the U.S. space industry and U.S. leadership on international space cooperation.
Beijing has also positioned itself to take advantage of the unclear legal regimes concerning the exploitation of space-based resources, while making statements linking its space exploration program to its sovereignty claims on Earth. Despite its insistence that it opposes the militarization of space, Beijing has fielded an array of counterspace capabilities enabling it to hold both civilian and military space assets at risk.
The PLA has developed doctrinal concepts for the use of these weapons early in a conflict, threatening to destabilize the space domain. Although the strategic value of some elements of China’s space program is not yet proven, Beijing is clearly of the view that the country that leads in space may also be economically and militarily dominant on Earth.
This section examines Beijing’s plans for economic and industrial expansion into space; its use of international space cooperation to promote its geopolitical interests; the application of military-civil fusion to China’s nascent commercial space sector; and China’s counterspace activities, capabilities, and doctrine. It draws from the Commission’s April 2019 hearing on China’s space ambitions, open source research and analysis, and consultations with outside experts.
National Rejuvenation and a “Space Dream”
China views establishing a leading position in the economic and military use of outer space as a core component of its goal to realize the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” or the “China dream”—an ambitious vision to restore what Beijing views as its historical leadership role in world affairs.
According to General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping, China’s “space dream” is to “explore the vast universe, develop aerospace enterprises, and build a strong aerospace country.” To achieve these goals and become what it has termed a “space power in all respects,” China has made focused efforts to catch up to and eventually surpass other spacefaring countries in terms of space-related industry, technology, diplomacy, and military power.
Beijing consistently invests high levels of funding and political will to its space program, with both the civilian government and military involved in formulating and executing policy at the highest level. China’s program is deeply connected to the “levers of power,” meaning its goals often draw support from top leaders and are interconnected with the overall priorities of China’s industrial and foreign policies.
Furthermore, many officials with backgrounds in the state defense complex have moved to senior government positions. While not all of these officials have backgrounds in space specifically, the result of these moves has been that senior Chinese political leaders often have a stronger technical understanding of the space sector than their foreign counterparts (see Addendum I on page 385 listing key Chinese officials with aerospace sector backgrounds).
Beijing has set ambitious goals for its space program and demonstrated its ability to achieve an increasingly sophisticated set of milestones. For example, if plans hold to launch its first long-term space station module in 2020, China will have matched the United States’ nearly 40-year progression from first human spaceflight to first space station module in less than 20 years.
29 responses to “U.S. Space Dominance Under Threat From China”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Looks like the people in the US Government have already forgotten much of the events of the 20th cen space race. This stood out to me … “
If plans hold to launch its first long-term space station module in
2020, it will have matched the United States’ nearly 40-year progression
from first human spaceflight to first space station module in less than
20 years.”…..
Let’s see, let’s make this look really bad. Sheppard did his suborbital flight in May 1961. Skylab was launched in May 1973. So 12 years from initial manned flight to first full up space station. The Chinese had far more Russian and American experience to draw from, had modern CNC manufacturing at their disposal, and took from 2003 to 2011, so 8 years to make the same jump. Like the Americans the Chinese have suffered many long pauses in their human space flight program.
I don’t think the manned program is the real measure of Chinese progress. The real progress has come in the form of communications, navigation, and reconnaissance programs that are operational and integrated. The level of integration with their warfighting systems is not yet in the public domain. Given China’s foray into other new technological fields we know they are prone to building infrastructure first with integration to come later. We have seen this with their wind and solar program with huge wind and solar farms waiting years before they are integrated with the local power grids. We can’t assume the same process is taking shape with their new space based satellite constellations, but we can’t rule it out either. We should keep our eyes open for weapons systems and military operations that make use of these new assets that give China a global overview and global communications capability.
I’ve actually skimmed this with a read to follow (I am getting a well deserved three day at home on a flight)…I will read the entire thing
similar reactions to you but I would add this
the real story in space development is two fold
first no one has found anything for humans to do in space that justifies their cost…that means, as you point out that the real progress is in the robust national infrastruction that they have launched in space for the backbone task of the nation
the second is that in both the US and China human spaceflight progress has crawled to a near halt. the Chinese really have no active human spaceflight effort and US things are at a residual level. Both SpaceX and Boeing (new and old space) are floundering in commercial crew, SLS development is a farce and even the “miracle at Boca C and Florida) is beset with issues.
its unclear that either country is in “a rush” to do anything with human spaceflight…
In order for HSF to become a factor, The BF(x) concept has to be working and moving people in the 100’s at a time in Near Earth Space. Right now the geography of the contest is from geosync on down. There we see the two problem sets needed for military operations. A need to deny. The Chinese, and Russians, need to deny American and European global reconnaissance and communications to disrupt the coherence of allied actions and to return the allied arsenal to the 1980’s by denying GPS as a means of encoding the battlefield. For the Chinese they also have a need to operate. The mercantile empire they are building via programs like Belt and Road depend and integrate smoothly with the current set of Chinese satellite constellations. There we have a political, economic, and military nexus, Compounding the existence of that nexus creates a path of denial by the allied Western powers. Thus creating the same dual strategic environment the Western powers have of operational need, and the threat of the consequence of denial. However all this is still as Earth-centric as Ptolomey’s cosmos. Near Earth Space as a geography of human military/political operations is not yet a real development.
Don’t look now but their “Belt and Road” program is proving to be a failure.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2…
One Belt, One Road, One Big Mistake
China’s signature foreign-policy project is a failure that the U.S. shouldn’t copy.
By Tanner Greer
|December 6, 2018, 3:29 PM
For HSF to become a factor there has to be something that economically pays for it.
as for the Chinese
the reasons for war are not static and they evolve along with the world and most importantly the worlds economy
most, (all) previous wars were resource oriented with differing economies that did not relate much to each other. What moved the Japanese to start WW2 was both their territorial empire ambitions which was in large measure funneled by their need to have control over the resources of Empire (and a geniune disdain for white European domination of the region)
the problem today is that the economies of all the worlds major powers (two the US and the PRC) are interrelated with each other and a disruption of that interrelationship hurts the disrupt er almost as much as the economy being disrupted
Space is not the oceans. the oceans (and the air above them) are the keys to the commerce of trade. Space is enormously different in that little actually comes from it, other then data packets which have some value in their own right, but are intangibles in their value
Except in terms of surveillance and operation of various systems.
it is unlikely that space will ever (at least in the near future) be any more than that…and hence its role in any battlefield will be very limited.
A guess is that the Chinese want a shooting war with us about as much as the US wants one with them…because both our economies would collapse in the process.
“We should keep our eyes open for weapons systems and military operations…”
You’re right. The Chinese built military bases on artificial reefs in international waters which act as both toll booths and force multipliers. They’ve told everyone who’s complained about it to drop dead. Their activity in this regard isn’t going to stop.
Heinlein pointed out that the moon is a good place from which to drop rocks on the earth. He was right, too. Sooner or later the first toll booths will be constructed there along with their associated FOBs.
the Moon is useless for dropping rocks on the earth …the Chinese have built bases on rocks because they recognize that these are replacable and ships are not (at least quickly) it is a clever strategery
Heinlein ‘s story is compelling and seems plausible. One who occupies the high ground has a strategic advantage, and he makes the case that it’s a lot less expensive to sling mass down the gravity well from the moon to the earth rather than vice versa.
The problem isn’t the gravity well, it’s the travel time. If you base nukes on the moon, it’s easy to detect when they launch. And then you have about 3 days to nuke the hell out of the power that launched from the moon before their nukes even make it to you. And 3 days to shoot those nukes down.
If you are the launching power, your RVs have to be much more robust than those for ICBMs.
So no, it’s not practical to base strategic forces on the moon, for these reasons and many, many more.
There are reasons it’s called science FICTION.
The U.S. military is, according to reports developing a railgun. This weapon isn’t sci-fi. It’s apparently capable of putting a shell into lunar escape orbit. Heinlein ‘s concept was damage caused by kinetic energy, not nuclear. It would be an interesting test to put a single one of these guns on the moon to lob a shell (designed to survive reentry) into a precise earth-intercept orbit and see what kind of impact damage it could do once it hit.
A lot of the infrastructure they build, like their empty cities, is to keep their population working so integration is an after thought. But in doing so they have built up a huge debt, over twice as large relative to their GDP as the U.S. national Debt, but it’s hidden in government owned corporations and their Providences. Add to that the approaching demographic crisis from their one child policy and their economy is poised for a meltdown. Hopefully the tariff war will push it over the edge. Given how they are contributing to global warming with a CO2 output twice that of the U.S. such a meltdown is probably the only thing that will save the world from global warming.
All that and the Chinese have only really developed the coast. There’s a vast interior and masses of impoverished people for American enterprise to exploit. The American business sector will be keeping the Chinese economy going for some time yet.
Don’t look now, but those impoverished masses are starting to get unhappy. The riots from Hong Kong are starting to spread to the mainland.
https://time.com/5742165/ma…
Hong Kong Democracy Slogans Heard at Mainland Chinese Protest: Report
By Hillary Leung / Hong Kong
December 2, 2019
Another advantage of high tariffs is they discourage American firms from going overseas. BTW if you don’t approve of the American firms producing products in China are you boycotting them by buying American?
there are no advantages of tariffs as they shift the burden of trade to the American people…you may think the money is going into the government but its not
tariffs are what you get when you dont have a coherent trade policy and cannot get one
I guess that is why Turkey has such high tariffs…
no its in retaliation for what President Bone Spurs did
China is actually one of the higher tariffs.
https://www.forbes.com/site…
In 2016, China had 3.5%, and now, they are over 5%.
Yes. Prior to 1913 tariffs in the U.S. averaged around 20% and provided the Federal government with most of its revenue. Tariffs were still high until the end of WWII when they started dropping and America industry started moving outside the U.S. Something to think about.
Incidentally, the further a product travels the more it contributes to climate change. High tariffs that reduce trade are therefore good for the environment.
From my reading it seems that industry offshoring started due to vastly lower labor costs elsewhere in the 40s and 50s in some industries. Decline of labor unions since has been partially fueled by them overpricing their markets in the illusion that it was a captive one.
And at least as important, the hostility towards the successful in the form of punitive income tax rates of over 90%. Take a massive hit on your profits, find legal loopholes AKA tax shelters, or offshore production and retain the profits overseas. In practice all three of these things took place, though active measures were taken to minimize the first one..
Tariffs are a tax on the domestic consumer in an attempt to protect local industry. It only works as long as the domestic industry is somewhat competitive. There’s a reason so many Asian cars are on the roads in the US today that traces back to the problems in the American product of the 50s-70s that allowed market penetration in the first place.
Quite often, tariffs are shooting yourself in the foot to punish the other guy. Sugar tariffs for instance have driven a couple of candy manufacturers to relocate from the US to Canada to hold their costs down so they can remain competitive in the world economy.
Reducing trade is not a generally good idea.
The higher cost of tariffs are offset by the higher income from having a stronger economy. Before WWII they prevented U.S. workers from having to be in competition with low cost foreign labor.
Yes, the excessively high income tax rates were also a factor driving U.S. firms to tax havens along with excessive regulation, the latter killing off both the American Merchant Marine and ship building industry.
Before WW2 there was the Great Depression. Not a poster child for your claims.
Also higher tariffs do not create a stronger economy by most economics theories or historical evidence.It normally leads to lower productivity and goods costing far more than the few jobs ‘saved’.
.
The depression was caused by tightening the money supply during a recession based on economic theories of the day, not tariffs as some claim it was. In economic terms the function of tariffs is to protect and encourage domestic industries. This is how other nations use tariffs and its about time the U.S. did so as well.
The intent of tariffs is to protect and encourage domestic industries. The historical results point the other direction in the majority of cases.
I’m good with trump raising tariffs on China. We have an average <1.5 while China is over 3.5 ( I think they are over 4 now, though ours also likely went up over last 2 years ).
Killing a lot of trade via Pacific esp for low-end to middle-end stuff is fine by me. Even over Atlantic, it makes sense to kill low-end. Within the America’s, it makes sense to have full trade.
I work hard to avoid buying Chinese made products.
No sense buying from a nation that is in a cold war with the west.
Tesla is building the Gigafactory 3 in China. I take it that you won’t be buying a Tesla then?
Gf3 is making entry level M3/MY for China only. No exports.
And we own a model S along with solar City 10 KW system.
We will pick up 1-2 powerwalls shortly.
And your point is what? If Tesla only sell it in China, Tesla is not doing business with the same government that you object to? Tesla is in bed with China now. Let that sink in. The same China with forced re-education centers and tremendous human rights abuses. It is nice to know that you are a complete hypocrite. Not unusual for Tesla supports.
at least their debt has built things that the people can use…not fed the war machine in useless wars…