Space Shuttle Secrets Stolen For China

Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Department of Justice has announced the indictment of former Boeing engineer Dongfan Chung on charges of economic espionage in the theft of company trade secrets relating to the Space Shuttle, the C-17 military transport aircraft, and the Delta IV rocket. Chung is a native of China and a naturalized US citizen. According to the indictment, Chinese aviation industry representatives began sending Chung 'tasking' letters as early as 1979. Over the years, the letters directed Chung to collect specific technological information, including data related to the Space Shuttle and various military and civilian aircraft. Chung allegedly responded in one letter indicating a desire to contribute to the 'motherland,' the DOJ said. It was not immediately clear how much, if any, damage the alleged espionage did to US national security but DOJ officials said the cases reflect the determination of the Chinese government to penetrate US intelligence and obtain vital national defense secrets. 'Today's prosecution demonstrates that foreign spying remains a serious threat in the post-Cold War world,' said Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security"

too much

too much privatization, and not enough oversight

Re:too much

> too much privatization, and not enough oversight

Are you suggesting that the U.S. should produce all of its rockets in-house? That hasn't been the case since, like, the 1950s.

Also, what do you think should have been done differently? He apparently [chicagotribune.com] had "Secret" level security clearance, which according to Wikipedia involves the following:

A Secret clearance, also known as Ordinary Secret, requires a few months to a year to fully investigate depending on the individual's activities. Some instances where individuals would take longer than normal to be investigated are many past residences, having residences in foreign countries, or have relatives outside the United States. Bankruptcy and unpaid bills as well as criminal charges will more than likely disqualify an applicant for approval. Poor financial history is the number one cause of rejection, and foreign activities and criminal record are also common causes for disqualification. A Secret clearance requires a National Agency Check, A Local Agency Check, Credit investigation and must be reinvestigated every 10 years.

Re:too much

They have lie detector tests in CIA? If you can't lie well enough, you get fired?

Re:too much

> I would certainly hope that every worker in our national space and military industries would have to undergo background checks and periodic lie detector tests, just like they use in the CIA.

As I mentioned in another comment, Chung had Secret-level security clearance, which (if I understand correctly) requires precisely the sort of background checks you describe.

Re:too much

Secret doesn't require lie detector. TS does. Various riders on Secret may require additional checking.

Re:too much

> periodic lie detector tests

Yeah, they should also undergo phrenology and palmistry exams too.

Not the Space Shuttle!

I don't know how we can recover from the Chinese gaining the secrets of the 1 MHz computers, and two billion dollar per-launch "reusable" technology. Ah well, the US probably stole that advanced technology from the crashed aliens anyway. It's only fair.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

Ah well, the US probably stole that advanced technology from the crashed aliens anyway.

The first indication that this was a bad idea should have been that the alien had crashed...

This is really bad!

Up to now, China was finding it very difficult to get their vehicles to explode.

These secrets will put them decades ahead in this area.

And at what point do we close the doors on them.

Seriously. At what point do we consider a country so dangerous that we will not longer do business with it? When do we finally say "go screw yourself" to dangerous governments?

Continuing to do business with China is like having a Gremlin as a pet. Or having a stuffed clown in your bedroom. Anyone growing up in the 80s will tell you those are two VERY big no-nos.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

And how would you fill up your WalMarts? Americans don't manufacture anything anymore... who's gonna make yer [stuff]?

India, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, Columbia, etc. There are plenty of democracies or semi-democracies that would love to have our business.

And/or, we could put our own rust-belt back to work so maybe their crime and poverty will go down. The "evils" of protectionism are exaggerated by business lobbyists.
     

It's a bad sign

Apparently the Chinese have stolen all the information they want on how to do things. Now they're down to stealing information on how not to do a space program.

Well, at least now...

They can write some code that doesn't need a shedload of debugging [fastcompany.com]...

Okay, on a serious note, this is 1976(?) tech here. I can understand wanting it real bad in 1979, but, err, 32 year-old-stuff is kinda dated when you consider that we routinely give China techonology that's a whole Hell of a lot newer [theregister.co.uk].

Besides, weren't they going to retire the Shuttle anyway? If China wants one so bad, why not sell 'em a used one for a decent markup?

As someone who has worked in and around certain aircraft projects a very long time ago, I can say for certain that this guy would've never even hoped to get near, say, an F-117 or B-2 project... there's too much compartmentalization (especially between NASA and the USAF/USN, for Hell's sakes...)

Given all of that - unless the guy started hacking mainframes and whatnot @ Boeing, I guess I just don't see where there would be a really huge dent in US national security at this point. He wouldn't have had the clearance, for starters.

/P

Oh man

Bribing someone to get information - that's so last millennium. Real man just seize laptops at the immigration check point and ask politely for all the passwords.

Re:Why is it always China?

because China is our enemy. Our leaders are just too stupid (or getting too rich from good "relations" with them) to realize it.

Because it makes for a good headline?

Honestly, industrial espionage in the US has been proven to be committed by: France (NATO ally), Israel (special ally) , Russia (ex-enemy), China (competitor).

Nothing new there. Besides, I'd be amazed if e.g. India, Pakistan, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and Iran weren't also active (or trying to be active) in this field.

Why then do we hear often about Chinese espionage? Is it just that Chinese espionage makes good headlines?

Well ... perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are so many (very good) ethnically Chinese engineers and scientists in the US, in all walks of life. Due to do Americans not being interested in an arduous career in Engineering or the Sciences when they can instead aim at Management, Legal services, or brokerage I'm told. Well, admittedly the Chinese government is quite organised about industrial espionage, and it's easier to get a rapport with an ethnic countryman than with some foreigner.

So ... if we assume a fixed promillage of the population open to espionage proposals, we must expect Chinese to be over-represented. Besides which ... it's not as if the US doesn't commit industrial espionage of itself (primarily in the EU; see e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/31/ianblack [guardian.co.uk]).

Lets just save our righteous indignation for a more worthy cause and simply shore up security on projects and firms that are attractive targets, shall we?

Well ... let's think that one through first, ok?

No, let's encourage more people to be techies, engineers, and scientists, and pay them better than dumbass MBAs for a change.

I'd love it if that were somehow possible. I really mean that.

However ... I do see a few probl... err ... I mean of course "Opportunities" here.

The first one being the opportunity to convince management in the US to pay engineers and scientists more and/or MBA's less.

The second one would be to convince them to stop seeing the engineering and R&D departments as regrettable cost centers to be outsourced and/or off-shored at the first opportunity.

The third opportunity would be to convince industry to offer Ph.D's opportunities (and to some extent academic entry-level positions) that make it less of a financial risk to do a Ph.D.

Prospects for Ph.D's (depending on discipline of course) can be so awful that you have to basically tell students: "Don't do a Ph.D. unless you (a) really derive fulfillment from doing research / teaching even if you're paid half to 1/3 of what you'd get in industry and (b) you are in the top 5% of your class, or you won't be able to get tenured".

And let's take away China's "Most Favored" trading status, if they keep up this shit. Why not? I do not feel obligated to help other nations that then turn around and dump on us.

Well ... industrial espionage is part of doing business. Between companies as much as between countries. Besides, trade is a two-way street. It's not as if the US are providing China with development aid. The US are benefiting from cheap Chinese products too. Have you ever considered what the impact on the US would be if there were to be say, 30% import tariffs on Chinese goods?

All those PC's, printers, T-shirts, hand tools, shoes, toys, and what not? First you'd kick off a vicious round of inflation if you did ... plus you'd be seriously hurting the bottom line of such all-American companies that have off-shored their manufactoring operations to China (just think of HP).

Generally speaking, you'd saddle lots of US companies with higher costs which would make them vulnerable in the current economic downturn *and* make them less competitive with e.g. EU-based companies.

Sure ... it would hurt China. They might even have riots. But it would hurt the US too. Very much so I'd say. So let's just be very sure about the cost-benefit ratio of such measures before we seriously propose them, ok? Like it or not, the US is as much networked into the global economy as China, the EU, and OPEC.

It's not to say that the US can't rescind China's "most favoured nation" state. Of course it can! The question is: what are the costs and what are the benefits. And I submit that the costs just might be a bit steep for the satisfaction of making our displeasure about industrial espionage known.

Re:Why is it always China?

Um ... perhaps that's because they're the ones doing it. I mean, that's what enemies do. I hope you don't consider China to be a U.S. ally, because they're not and never will be so long as their government is what it is. They don't even qualify as neutral, given the effect they're having on our economy and their ongoing pillage of the U.S. economy and education system.

Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are. It's a bit more difficult in our case, since we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools.

Re:Why is it always China?

Nah ... you only need engineers when you're planning on building and manufacturing things. We're a "service economy" now, haven't you heard. Of course, to some that's pretty much synonymous with "third world economy".

Just give it time. We'll get there.

Re:Why is it always China?

While your signature already indicates your bias, might I ask you if you had considered the idea that Americans are being shut out simply because they don't work as hard as some of these Chinese students?

Since your evidence is entirely anecdotal, allow me to give an anecdote of my own (ie: one that was not passed onto me by a friend): I finished college 2 years ago and during my 4 years there the Chinese, Japanese and Korean students (1st or 2nd generation) were the ones who were consistently at the top of their classes in fields like math, engineering, science, etc.

Why is that?

In my experience it's the direct result of them spending their free time studying these subjects while the typical American student is taking bong rips or having sex.

Americans value the college experience for its education and social worth (bong rips and sex) while people from Asian cultures value college solely as a learning experience. They aren't there to have fun.

(Yes, these are generalizations and are based on personally experienced anecdotes, but none of what I said here was any more biased than the parent.)

Re:Why is it always China?

Based upon my personal experience teaching (and like hell I'm going to post non-anonymously) Chinese students are not particularly brighter than anybody else - where they stand out is in gaming the system. The myth of the "amazingly smart chinese student" arose before we all understood just how seriously they take this.

They will focus like maniacs on getting every little edge they can to get a few points up (cheating very much included). Once you try to test them to see if they actually *understand* anything, they fall apart pretty rapidly and quite often are well behind other members of the class - when this happens they will often jump straight into the "me no understand the english so well" routine, which is just another game.

I have met some extremely bright Chinese students, but in no higher proportion than from any other group.

Re:Why is it always China?

Because the Israelis are our friends. Espionage from Israel doesn't count.

Re:Uhm

Nonsense. Nobody says that they have to copy the design intact. Whatever problems the Shuttle may be as a complete system, the fact is that there's decades of useful R&D in the underlying technologies that make it work, and that's incredibly valuable stuff any foreign power wanting a leg up into space. Hell, the materials science alone would be worthwhile. The software, too, while it runs on archaic S360 equipment is also pretty remarkable for what it does, and you can bet your bottom dollar the Chinese would love to get their hands on it. Any step we took, any research we did, and knowledge we have that advances the Chinese space development timetable is worth keeping to ourselves.

Never let the enemy have anything for free.

this is abusing a rule of thumb

Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.

Yeesh, this canard again. Look, when we really think about it, don't you think it's only an occasionally useful rule of thumb that the age of a technology has some correlation to its quality and cleverness? Why should it? Is it really reasonable to assume that every technological problem has an infinite number of solutions, which will always be discovered in ascending order of cleverness?

I mean, do we argue that astronauts shouldn't use ball-point pens in orbit because that's 1960s technology, and surely there must be something better now? That they shouldn't use handkerchiefs to blow their nose because that's 16th century technology? NASA shouldn't use wheels on the design of a moon rover because wheels were invented 5000 years ago? They should use something other than calculus to calculate orbits because it was invented in the 1620s and hasn't changed a bit since? Sometimes the best solution to a problem is an old and well-known one. Newer isn't automatically better.

It seems to me that the Space Shuttle was designed at the end of the golden age of rocketry: in the 50s and 60s clever youngsters went into aerospace the way they went into computers and the Internet in the 80s and 90s. It was exciting, it was way out on the frontier, and it paid decently. NASA and their contractors collected most of the best, and they did pretty impressive engineering work. Yes, they didn't have some of the fancy electronics parts their descendants have now, but avionics is only part of the spacecraft -- and when you're talking about a spacecraft that has to survive two very high-energy events (launch and re-entry) -- the quality and coolness of the avionics is probably not the key criterion for design success. Something like airframe design, system robustness, and a canny use of materials is probably way more important.

Since the 1980s, however, aerospace engineering talent in the US has aged and shrunk, and far fewer of the best and brightest go into the field. Furthermore, the excitement and potential glory of a real frontier-type mission is missing. Designing reliable electric bus connectors for solar-power panels on the ISS isn't quite the same as trying to squeeze an extra 5 ounces out of the weight of the first manned Mars lander. It doesn't attract the very best young talent.

So it may very well be that the "1970s technology" design of the SS is as good or better than what could be done today, avionics aside. Certainly the difficulty which private aerospace has had recently in trying to duplicate, essentially, the circa 1965 Saturn 1B medium-lift launch vehicle should make one pause thoughtfully before concluding that it's just a piece of cake to design a combination heavy-lift vehicle and re-usable manned spaceplane seating 10 that leaves the SS in the dust. I mean, if it were easy to do better -- wouldn't someone have done so, already? It's not like there isn't a fortune to be made by the first organization that can get 50 tons of cargo and a crew of 10 to LEO for 10% of the price of a SS launch.

Re:duh!

No need to swipe anything -- China just buys up companies. For example, GM owas producing neodymium magnets which are used in everything from "Smart Bombs" to hard drives. In 1995, it sold the business to Sextant Group (Chinese) although a promise was extracted from the feds (because this was tech important to defense) to leave production here in America. Bush said naught when Sextant packed off everything to China: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/685/ [inthesetimes.com]
Excerpt:

U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) appealed to the Bush administration last fall to use powers under the 1988 Exon-Florio Amendment to the defense bill to block the transfer of the Valparaiso plant on national security grounds because the operation supplied 80 percent of magnets needed for smart bombs. The plant's move to China was denounced in lengthy magazine exposés from both the right (Insight) and left (Counterpunch). But the Bush administration did nothing.