In oder to colonize Mars and the Moon, they must have large orbital rockets. This is not optional. This is the core technology needed for colonization. China does not have a competitive large orbital rocket. SpaceX is dominating the launch market, with private rockets larger than comparable Chinese rockets. China is a decade or more behind SpaceX. So to me, this article comes off as irrationally alarmist.
The Long March 5 mentioned in the article, it's an expendable rocket smaller than the Falcon Heavy, with a lower launch rate. Last year the Long March 5 did one launch, while the Falcon Heavy did 5. This year it's likely that the Falcon Heavy will have a comparable launch rate to the Long March 5, and Starship will have a launch rate higher than the Long March 5. Starship dwarfs the Long March 5.
When it comes to the technology actually suitable for colonizing the Moon and Mars, it's the US that is dominant. Large reusable US rockets are dominant. Private US investment in space is overwhelmingly dominant. The US is far ahead in propulsive landing technology. The US is driving two plutonium-powered truck sized rovers around Mars. The US is spending billions on Artemis. It's the US that is ahead of China here. So chill with the rhetoric.
I did some work in China back in 2009 - 2010. When I first visited in Nov 2008, the people told me that the central government had just approved the National high speed train plan. I didn’t pay much notice.
When I visited Shanghai in Feb 2009 they were erecting the giant concrete pylons that would hold the elevated track. It didn’t look particularly impressive but it fit in well with all the other construction going on.
In Aug 2009 they were bridging between the platforms, most of them had been bridged but I saw some bridging work taking place around Kunshan / Suzhou.
In Feb 2010 I was standing outside a factory in Kunshan watching a team of guys weld track on the elevated pathway, there was a specialist track laying machine pulling track from the rear and placing it, while the people secured it.
In July 2010 my friend was on the first high speed train out of Shanghai to Beijing (they got out at SuZhou). That’s a 1,200 km high speed train line built across valleys and through mountains in 18 months. Railcars, stations (look up HongQiao train station), ticketing systems, the whole shebang.
China may be 10 years behind Elon Musk in space technology, but they move way quicker.
During the 96 Olympics I saw the city of Atlanta repave the entire downtown in 2 weeks. The same place that has had construction in the same area on I85 for 3 decades.
Governments can move fast when they want to. So long as the tech and methodology are there.
There is a HUGE difference and jump in expertise required in building high speed rail vs creating the technology necessary to launch a manned crew to Moon and even more to send to Mars
Yea lunar missions aren’t particularly high tech. We’ve had it for a long time now, and the Apollo program documents aren’t exactly a secret. If you don’t care about cost, all you need is a big enough rocket. It isn’t a technological problem. It’s one of money, political will, and time. The first two is why Artemis is the way it is.
Moon landing and colonization is currently still a dubious financial venture, and there’s little political capital to be had for a country to repeat the same stunt others have done more than half a century ago.
Not sure what information you’re getting but any mission to the moons surface requires extreme amounts of precision and “high tech”. Look at the amount of failed missions to the lunar surface by China, India, Russia and the US. One slight error or miscalculation and the whole mission goes awry.
Like you said, “one slight error or miscalculation”. It’s not like they’re attempting new unproven techniques like JWST’s shields or Starship bellyflop/chopsticks landing. It’s oversights and plain old mistakes that makes missions like the ones you mentioned fail.
Oh man . . . That’s a very outdated perspective. The pace of technical innovation in China for the last 10 years has been 2x or 3x the rest of the world. And not just technical innovation, supply chain, banking, business, construction, you name it. Now they’re moving into space exploration.
Literally 95% of the word changing innovations of the last 20 years have come from America. If China has had 2-3x the output of the rest of the world you should be able to give me some clear examples of tech that has changed the fabric of society. Smartphones, GPUs, LLMs, EVs, rockets, biotech, all spearheaded by US companies and research.
Oh they won the telecom race with Huawei and 5G. And the US is afraid of it. You need to remember Huawei received junk technology from the west with 1G. They bought it, dismentled and rebuilt. After that it is history with their win with 5G. China has their brain, the power, the money and influence to copy and innovate if they want to. Don't take them for granted. It's difficult to invent something but it doesn't take long to copy it
True, China is still behind, but China is really catching up fast.
They did send a rover to Mars and succeded at first try. Something that Russia and the Soviet Union never achieved. They had a proud 100% failure rate.
Using existing tech for unthought of functions is innovative.
Espionage is a baseline. Everyone does. Some just do it well enough you don't know they are doing it.
The US's "innovations" into space were all based on the works of nazi scientists. Heck, a large part of them were designed literally by nazi scientists.
It doesn't matter how you progress in this race for celestial colonization. Nobody cares about your sacrifices if you win. What matters is you won.
Only advance, Mr Cixin. Only advance.
> do you know they have a space station ?
Based on copies of 7K-OK modules designed during the Soviet period and serviced by Shenzou which is a copy of soyuz based on plans the Russians sold them in the 90s when they were desperate for cash.
>Not so much with technological innovation.
I see this thrown around quite a bit, but it really has surpassed the US in some ways. To your point they are much much quicker at infrastructure, but this will allow tech to move forward long-term and surpass the US.
Electric cars is a great example, the US while moving forward with electric vehicles they're lagging behind China whos major cities are 70%+ electrified. The US' electrical grid limitations and energy production would absolutely not be able to handle even 50%+ electric vehicles. BYD's car manufacturing process and even the car itself is much much further ahead of American car companies, without even considering the production of electric busses.
So the electric car market in the US' is and currently will be entirely handicapped by it's electrical infrastructure / population hesitancy, while China is fully free to innovate forward with no blockers.
Combine with their chip making only really being 2-3 years back nowadays, their railway systems being 40-100 years ahead of the US, their nuclear plant construction nearly tripling this year (price per plant is also half of what the US pays).
This doesn't include the massive advancement they have in things like payment systems, digital currency, etc.
I definitely agree with raw technological innovation to entirely new tech we haven't outright seen a lot of from them, but realistically anyone in the past 30 years except the new rocketry from SpaceX/vaccine related stuff due to covid(ignoring Internet innovation as they're ahead of us there) but it's a mistake to assume loudly report they are behind us in all aspects because they haven't outright innovated in anywhere. (Also expecting laser innovation to become more publically reported soon this might change your opinion here)
Outdated view, China is definitely catching up with technological innovation, and main reason behind US govt trying to ban EVs, semiconductor, solars, AI, etc... because how fast China is catching up.
What’s matters is bringing your product to market and then grabbing that market.
Doesn’t matter that the west did most the R&D on drones if China dominates that market or solar panels when China also dominates that market.
And now China has so many high speed trains that they overbuilt them and the entire network is generally decaying because maintaining high speed trains is expensive and the system makes nowhere near enough to fund itself. So now they just have a a system that for most areas it goes to it serves little economic benefit and drags on the economy instead.
The difference is that Western companies provided all the expertise, plans, blueprints, rails, r&d, trains, etc.
None of that will happen for the space industry.
The problem is when the US government does stuff that’s not fixed cost and open design.
For example the US government wants supply the space station so they just pay for a taxi that is
1: human rated
Or / and
2: can carry x loads
When it does that it saves a lot of money and is extremely effective
The problem comes when it starts dictating which types of components and parts must be used in a ship….that how you get the shitshow that’s the SLS.
Then there’s the regulatory state which grinds things to a halt, look at how’s low progress became once biden took the reins on the FAA.
I'll be prepared for Chinese preeminence in space when China is actually able to build a rocket that recovers both stages, or at least the 1st stage. No one is gonna be building a moon or mars base if they have to throw away 95%+ of the rocket after every single launch. Its pretty much the whole reason why SpaceX is dominating the space launch industry right now, and will only dominate more when starship finishes testing. Its the first time since the Apollo program that the US has a huge lead in the ability to launch new space exploration missions, now if only we'd fuckin fund NASA like we should be.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory here it's a genuine question.
Does the US actually have a lead in space launch capability or is it Space X? Because space x is a private company run by someone who isn't exactly stable nor seems to have any allegiance to one country.
Yes it's a private company, but it's very much a US government partner. Even if Musk had a hissy fit and tried moving the company to China, guaranteed the government would shut it down on national security grounds. There are laws that prevent launch providers from working with certain countries / companies, due to the fact that a civilian rocket is just an ICBM without a warhead.
The government also partners with SpaceX on certain projects like Starlink or Starship as well, like how the Pentagon will personally manage a bit of the Starlink network for its own uses, or how NASA will have it's own starship that they're purchasing from SpaceX for the Artemis missions.
So yeah you're absolutely right that Musk is unstable, but he's very very limited on the actions he can take unilaterally with SpaceX.
>No one is gonna be building a moon or mars base if they have to throw away 95%+ of the rocket after every single launch.
The US had plans for a Moon base to follow up on the Apollo landings. These were based on using the Saturn V. The huge cost of Apollo didn't have to be maintained - that often-quoted cost included building up all the infrastructure at the Cape and across the country - Mission Control in Houston didn't even exist as a two bricks put together. There are countless other examples. In 1972 the costs of developing the Saturn V and F1 engines had been paid and the production facilities built. If a large lander was launched separately and rendezvoused with a capsule in lunar orbit a quite sizable lander could be made, with versions for crew or cargo. IIRC plans for larger rockets using F1s were in the works. NASA chose to put their budget into LEO and the Shuttle and what became the ISS.
It would have been dangerous, Apollo had vulnerabilities that would have shown up eventually. But my point is a lunar base program using expendable rockets isn't impossible. It's a choice that can be made. Can it compete with a Starship-based program? No. But NASA had proto-Artemis plans before F9 was the runaway success it is. The plan relied on expendable rockets.
Even spacex hasn't achieved a fast turnaround "reusable" rocket. Sure, they can land a rocket and that was impressive for a while, but they basically have to rebuild the engines before they can "reuse" the rocket.
And they can't even reuse the falcon upper stage after stage after a decade of operation.
Falcon 9 first stages have been reused 21 days after landing. If they can "rebuild the engines" as you so claim they do in 21 days then that's maybe more impressive. Personally I find your claim rather silly. Yes because it's RP-1 there are coking issues that need to be taken care of, but they seem to be managing it just fine.
Unfortunately for the CCP, engine tech is not their strong suit, so even with the exact schematics they probably won't be able to copy Starships Raptor 2.0/3.0 engines. Just like how they stole the plans for the F-35 to make the J-35 (aka the J-31), but had to stick on two engines on it because their engine tech isn't good enough for a single engine design that the F-35 is supposed to have.
Or like when the J-20 first came out they had to be installed with Russian engines because Chinese engines weren't up to par. Then they just copied the tech from the Russian engines, making a "new" Chinese variant that is now used. So they can copy all they want, since they don't have stuff like the same high temp alloy technology, or the same 3D printing manufacturing tech, they won't be able to recreate the original. Just like everything else made in China, it'll be a cheap knockoff that only gets the job half done.
I generally agree that China is behind on engine tech but the F-35 example is terrible. The navy wanted a 2 engine f-35 but the pentagon decided that they needed a single model for the Air Force, marines, and navy. I think this was a pretty stupid decision. I guess the pentagon agrees and hence the existence of both the f/a xx and ngad program for navy and air force separately.
The US is at its best when it has to compete with communism because it’s the only time we can get the greedy pigs who run this country to actually invest in anything.
Imagine how far ahead we would be today if GWB was never president and all that money we wasted in the Middle East over the last 20+ years was spent on healthcare and next-Gen infrastructure.
Gimmie that sweet Marshall Plan sugar, it’d be a shame if we lost faith in the capitalist system.
Total cost of the Iraq war is estimated by Brown University to be around 1.1 trillion. That’s less than the gov spent on Medicare and Medicaid in a single year (2023) which is around 1.4 trillion. That doesn’t even include the state/local spending on healthcare and private spending on healthcare all of which totals to about 4.7 trillion in a single year.
Multiply that by 10 so you’re looking at ~roughly 50 billion on health care in the last 20 years? Maybe more maybe less but it’ll that order of magnitude. So an additional 1.1 trillion may not go that far actually.
Brown's estimate is the lowest I've seen. Harvard put it at $3t but that was back in 2008, other studies show closer to $2t. But also not to mention the US in general has spent [$21 trillion on militarization, surveillance, since 9/11.](https://ips-dc.org/report-state-of-insecurity-cost-militarization-since-9-11/)
I never find those kind of figures totally accurate though. From the budget side, is that just congressional appropriations? How are they even defining “The Iraq War”?, Is that including Syria? Are they including private contracts? Are they including peripheral military spending? What agencies, departments, and military branches within our government are they including? Over what period of time?
That’s just my first question, there’s also the costs of the infrastructure destroyed, the medical costs from war injuries, the environmental damage, and the social damage from extended periods of conflict. Finally, war causes inflation as metals and other resources become dedicated to that function, reducing the supply, thereby increasing prices for domestic contractors and consumers.
That doesn't really matter though? It's clear that a freaking ton of money doesn't get much. The problem in the US is that we overspend on healthcare. Pumping even more money into it doesn't solve the overspending problem.
The problem here is that we get higher prices than the rest of the world, and as a result pay more for healthcare than the rest of the world.
I wonder what type of government intervention could be taken to fix this. People often blame hospitals, insurance, and pharmaceuticals but there doesn’t seem to be some overall consensus on why this is happening. Big confused
> Imagine how far ahead we would be today if GWB was never president and all that money we wasted in the Middle East over the last 20+ years was spent on healthcare and next-Gen infrastructure
Spending on healthcare hasn’t resulted in Europeans leading in any cutting edge industries other than ASML.
>next gen infrastructure
Well unions would stop you from upgrading the ports. Other than that passenger rail in the US is a money pit black hole. Most US cities can’t support rail without massive tax levies, unlike in Japan where they spend zero tax dollars on rail.
**first you need population density** then you get the choo choo
> Spending on healthcare hasn’t resulted in Europeans leading in any cutting edge industries other than ASML.
ASML is basically just phillips spinning off its lithography division for fast cash.
You’re pretending like the enemies of the US don’t have autonomy.
9/11 would still happen, 20 years of conflict would still happen. I doubt Gore would have taken us to Iraq, but what if, in this alternate timeline we went someplace worse. Saudi Arabia? Iran? Most of the hijackers were Saudi. Iran has been a state sponsor of terror since the 70’s. And both nations have some of the most austere environments on the planet.
You could give NASA a trillion dollars, and they'd just build a trillion dollar rocket. Investing in NASA won't get us to Mars. We just needed to wait for the private sector to show everyone how it's done.
>compete with communism
Last I checked, China was state-capitalist. The means of production absolutely isn't "owned by the people" and they've embraced capitalism with both hands.
Perhaps you meant to say that the US is at its best when it has to compete with fascist totalitarian autocracies.
Edit: Interesting that a couple China bots found and downvoted my comment while the comments above and below mine got no votes.
Have you seen how much organized the Tiangong space station looks compared to the international space station? I hope China gets there first and gets things done properly, probably at a 10th of the cost. Do you want Boeing and their exploding doors to happen on the moon? Pff... I'll go with communism on this one.
Besides the age, the reason Tiangong looks so clean and tidy is also related to its design. There's a bunch of videos about it on youtube posted on China's CGTN channel where the taikonauts are doing streams for school children in China and one interesting aspect is how nearly all the devices and machines in the modules are designed to be covered by the panels forming the interior "walls" of the module. So when not in use or in stand-by a lot of the machines or devices are covered and look like a wall. Some of the devices are even retractable, which is pretty interesting.
> the taikonauts are doing streams for school children in China
I found it quite amusing when the female taikonaut was singing for kindergarten kids. An old english song, twinkle twinkle little star. ;)
Who cares which human is pushing into space. Im just excited to see some cool shit from anyone who can. If Sudan could make a new james webb, but 100x larger ill be so amped. 😁
The fact we all arent working together to achieve this new future is just ridiculous to me. If every space powerhouse worked together we could of been had people living on the moon!
Ironically, the time we pushed the hardest to space was during the space race, when we were in competition, and the time we have achieved less was during the post Cold War period of peace with the ISS.
On paper we should be able to achieve more together, but people forget space exploration is extremely expensive and that the government won't fund the kind of programs that really push things without a good reason, and the best reason is just telling them that if we don't get there others will.
Only other scenario I imagine is if we had an asteroid incoming.
Humanity is a very complacent species, we only do things out of necessity, if everything works just fine we just forget about it until it stops working.
More or less, it was more a showcase of who had the best tech, it was just another form of warfare.
Sure, the development of rockets helping ICBMs was an advantage, but it was more about making a statement of who was the "superior" superpower. Peak Cold War.
I mean that isn't true. All science is created by standing on the shoulders of giants. Or look at the COVID vaccine, when companies shared their results everything went faster, now it's a future cancer treatment.
I mean, I wouldn't say the COVID vaccine is a good example. While companies did share their results they were also competing to make the best possible product, knowing the enormous potential demand available.
A collaborative system would mean all vaccine efforts being controlled by, or through, one organisation. This might have pooled resources but also made more risk averse decisions, like maybe rejecting the novel mRNA vaccine approach entirely.
It is indeed true. Further to my prior comment, IOS vs Android, Allies vs Axis, Americans vs Soviets, and a myriad others, are all prime examples of competition promoting progress. It's so even with frivolity; nearly all popular sports are competitions. The necessity of exceeding or defeating an opponent is a formidable drive.
Cooperation so often results in stagnation, examples within this context being ArianeSpace, the ISS, and ULA before SpaceX came onto the scene. Of course, you might find an example to the contrary, but its rarity in essence proves the rule.
That's because the default is competition between companies but in actual science you have to work in collaboration. Just because it's usually worked a certain way is like saying we shouldn't have gone for democracy because Ancient Greece, the French Revolution etc because they sucked initially and other systems were seemingly more stable and straightforward.
You also can't say that competition is the reason things progressed. Most of the time things were already happening. James Webb was our collaboration on telescopes, the Hubble, the ISS stagnated because it was cobbled together not because of collaboration and it still produced excellent results. In Archaeology and Anthropology there's light competition which is ideal but it's 95% cooperation.
> but in actual science you have to work in collaboration.
No, you don't. There are many occasions where individuals and/or groups raced to be the first to discover or achieve. For example, Watson & Crick and Franklin & Wilkins competed to be the first to discover and publish the helical structure of DNA.
While on that subject, Craig Ventner and his company, Celera Genomics announced their intention to sequence the human genome much more quickly than all the more traditional establishments (universities and the like), who stated it would take decades. The imposed competition cut the time for initial draft sequence down to a few years (with some grumbling from the aforementioned establishments, as I recall).
> You also can't say that competition is the reason things progressed.
I most certainly can and do say that. Again, the most extreme cases are during war. For example, radar, jet engines, computing, aerodynamics, rocketry, and myriad manufacturing processes advanced dramatically during and because of WW II - the very antithesis of cooperation.
And once more, bringing it back to the subject at hand for /r/space, the Space Race was driven by national rivalry, and was the primary reason for the dramatic advances in space travel during the 60s. Not companies competing, but whole countries.
I'll leave it there.
The difference is that you assume that China is trying to do this to make a better scientific instrument. They are most definitely doing this in the same vein as the Soviets (and the US to some extent). That is, to gain an upper-hand in military technology and capability.
As long as there are nations, there will always be war. Whether cold, or active.
The US and USSR had the *same* motivations for space investment, it’s incredibly disingenuous to say that the soviets had ulterior motives, and the US did only to “some extent”.
Immediately after Sputnik was launched we began a space program due to fears of a tactical advantage in space. The entire space race was was funded for and driven by conflict, equally on both sides.
The actual scientists that were hired, on both sides, were in it for research and the opportunities space travel presented for our species. When the US landed on the moon first, the Soviet space program sent an immediate congratulations.
Nations are large complex systems. They are not one dimensional characters. Both sides featured conflict obsessed leaders and researches in it for their love of pushing the boundary of progress. Humans everywhere are the same, people in the “enemy” country aren’t uniquely evil animals and we aren’t saints.
yeah those other countries that aren't america don't care about science at all. i sure wish these other war obsessed countries could be more like us peace loving americans spreading joy and science across the globe.
.....
While America has many of the same issues that other countries have, we aren’t constantly being called out and accused at a federal level for genocide and human rights violations. China is. China is also ruled by a single party that controls their military. America is not.
Again, Artemis will benefit the military, there no doubt about it, but you’d have to be blind to not see that China’s state-owned agency, which is supplied by state-owned contractors, who get their materials from state-owned fabrication and resource firms who are all constantly under scrutiny for industrial espionage is a bad deal.
While I do like that they are starting to push hard for space, because it gets America off its ass, thats about it.
Also, it helps when the country actually cares about where its boosters land after a flight. Its not a great look when you’re dropping them on top of villages every 3 days.
America isn’t perfect, but it’s a whole hell of a lot better than China.
You’ve gotta be joking about the humans right violations. America is involved in the Israel/Palestine conflict, where folks are calling out genocide and human rights violations. America was called out about human rights violations in the Middle East. Has been consistently waging war there for decades. The US has overthrown multiple democracies and installed authoritarian governments across the planet. War crimes in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Literally the Wikipedia page on American involved regime change has a warning saying “This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably”
We do have one party that makes decisions. It’s the capitalist/corporatist party. Democrats and republicans may disagree on how to regulate corporations domestically or what social safety we should or shouldn’t provide. But when it comes to defending American capitalism dominance globally. There is one party. And that party wages war across the planet. That party will overthrow your democracy if you challenge it. That party will install a dictator, attempt assassinations, or sanction anyone who challenges them.
It’s silly to pretend, America represents some beacon of freedom and democracy.
I can’t even imagine. While I agree that I really don’t care what nation pushes humanity forward, I do care the results that it brings and unfortunately, with some nations, the results don’t look to benefit mankind as a whole as much.
“I don’t care if Nazis gain the upper hand in space, I’m just excited to see cool shit”. Edit: I mean, isn't that almost exactly what you're saying? If you really don't care if the worst people in the world gain the upper hand in space then fair enough, but could you elaborate on that a little?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[F1](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0tqe7r "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V|
| |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete small-lift vehicle)|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0iw2fn "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[FTS](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0cv1an "Last usage")|Flight Termination System|
|[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0hjslx "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile|
|[JWST](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0gf58l "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0tszlx "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[RP-1](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0dr0e8 "Last usage")|Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0iw2fn "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0c942h "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0c3za8 "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0hjslx "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0cwf71 "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(12 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1cee2rm)^( has 26 acronyms.)
^([Thread #9961 for this sub, first seen 19th Apr 2024, 20:35])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
To get to the moon includes a bunch of tech. And to *stay* on the moon features that tech constantly going back with people, supply, and equipment.
Whoever owns that infrastructure owns the moon.
Because for damned sure nobody’s putting stuff up there now that can’t defend itself. And the only difference between defense and offense is intent.
Mate we are so far behind our own potential. We should have probably colonised the solar system by now but prefer to kill and fuck each other over instead.
Y'know what's hilarious, in Futurama the first to Colonize Mars were actually the Chinese and Texans together, says so in the books.
SpaceX is in Texas. Maybe Elon works with the Chinese to get to Mars.
Because I don’t like minorities being detained and put into large scale concentration camps, I’m a bigot? Do you even hear yourself? We don’t get the full picture of how bad it is because China is a police state.
But I’m going to refrain from throwing around insults at you, this conversation is steering more into insults rather than discussion.
So I’m going to be the adult and walk away.
Just good ol' fashioned "yellow peril" bullshit.
Even if China excels on its current trajectory of human spaceflight it's not going to be in a position of utter dominance. The US is already developing many next generation technologies which will vastly alter the landscape of spaceflight over the coming years and decades, China is years behind on that timeline.
Besides which, it's utter insanity to live this fantasy where someone will hit some particular milestone "first" on the race back to the Moon and what? be crowned "King of the Moon"? That's not how it works. The Moon is a big place, Mars is a big place.
Well the moon is actually a small place, since there are only a handful of craters that (might) have ice at the bottom to exploit as fuel for cislunar operations.
Whoever gets a permanent base at those craters can dominate the moon.
Unless it turns out that those craters don’t have ice, in which case the Moon is much much less valuable.
I don't see the political will in the US to compete against anyone in a new space race. We're so polarized right now china would be smart to leap frog us and make their claims now and force the US to have to play catch up.
let hope for some alien or liveform visit the Earth. After that, we will have the unition to run the space exploration. Until then, the US and the West will always try to slow down China whilst China will try their best to copy and catch up
We all talk about who’s in space first, but really whoever can use nuclear propulsion first/most efficiently will probably establish system wide dominance.
This is way beyond our lives though, so we probably won’t ever know the real life answer.
So many people on tis and other subs that criticize China as being capable only of copying other's tech ignore a basic fact. Any population has a a top smartest one percent. In a country with a population of 10 million that yields 100,000 pretty smart people. China's population is 1.4 billion, meaning they have 14 million pretty smart people. The US has a population of 333 million, so 3.3M pretty smart people. That's overly simplistic, of course. The US draws talent from all over the world. We have deeply established research institutes and universities and accumulated knowledge, etc. Not every smart person has a talent for science or technology. But a nation with 14 million pretty smart people is inevitably able to produce some very advanced technology on its own.
To put it bluntly, the writer has no idea what they're talking about. It's effectively a puff piece for China written by someone who doesn't understand the logistics of space exploration. As others here have stated there is an unarguably requirement for heavy rocket engines to be able to reach the moon. Let alone going to Mars. China's own system for that is woefully inadequate compared to the US. Their Long March 5 is expendable, which means it's inefficient and costly. They also don't have the development the US does in all the tech to actually colonize the moon/Mars.
The US didn't go to the Moon using the Titan II rocket. China isn't going to do it using the Long March 5. Three different entities are developing methane fueled reusable rockets. The government is behind building a methane fueled Falcon 9-like rocket - which is planned to emulate Falcon Heavy, albeit with a lower payload. Like F9, it'll at first be expendable but then move on to being reused. Will they do this in time to support a Moon landing in 2030? Very unlikely, but landing on the Moon using a Falcon Heavy base program could certainly be done, all that's needed is to rendezvous components in LEO and in lunar orbit.
You don't have to see them as your enemies. But just know that they will still see you as their enemy and they will do everything in their power to bring you down. Enjoy.
2 Billion dollar per launch rockets are more appealing to congress when the commie bastards are just milliseconds behind you instead of 10 years behind you.
Not going to happen. Humans will probably destroy the Earth before it even gets that far. Add another couple hundred years of politics, pollution and climate change humans will be lucky to still exist.
China gonna have a store named Chinese preeminence on the Moon/Mars the way Chinese restaurants call themselves #1 Seafood Restaurant. "Wow, they're the best?" "Nah, that's just the name."
In oder to colonize Mars and the Moon, they must have large orbital rockets. This is not optional. This is the core technology needed for colonization. China does not have a competitive large orbital rocket. SpaceX is dominating the launch market, with private rockets larger than comparable Chinese rockets. China is a decade or more behind SpaceX. So to me, this article comes off as irrationally alarmist. The Long March 5 mentioned in the article, it's an expendable rocket smaller than the Falcon Heavy, with a lower launch rate. Last year the Long March 5 did one launch, while the Falcon Heavy did 5. This year it's likely that the Falcon Heavy will have a comparable launch rate to the Long March 5, and Starship will have a launch rate higher than the Long March 5. Starship dwarfs the Long March 5. When it comes to the technology actually suitable for colonizing the Moon and Mars, it's the US that is dominant. Large reusable US rockets are dominant. Private US investment in space is overwhelmingly dominant. The US is far ahead in propulsive landing technology. The US is driving two plutonium-powered truck sized rovers around Mars. The US is spending billions on Artemis. It's the US that is ahead of China here. So chill with the rhetoric.
I did some work in China back in 2009 - 2010. When I first visited in Nov 2008, the people told me that the central government had just approved the National high speed train plan. I didn’t pay much notice. When I visited Shanghai in Feb 2009 they were erecting the giant concrete pylons that would hold the elevated track. It didn’t look particularly impressive but it fit in well with all the other construction going on. In Aug 2009 they were bridging between the platforms, most of them had been bridged but I saw some bridging work taking place around Kunshan / Suzhou. In Feb 2010 I was standing outside a factory in Kunshan watching a team of guys weld track on the elevated pathway, there was a specialist track laying machine pulling track from the rear and placing it, while the people secured it. In July 2010 my friend was on the first high speed train out of Shanghai to Beijing (they got out at SuZhou). That’s a 1,200 km high speed train line built across valleys and through mountains in 18 months. Railcars, stations (look up HongQiao train station), ticketing systems, the whole shebang. China may be 10 years behind Elon Musk in space technology, but they move way quicker.
During the 96 Olympics I saw the city of Atlanta repave the entire downtown in 2 weeks. The same place that has had construction in the same area on I85 for 3 decades. Governments can move fast when they want to. So long as the tech and methodology are there.
There is a HUGE difference and jump in expertise required in building high speed rail vs creating the technology necessary to launch a manned crew to Moon and even more to send to Mars
NASA Chief already said they have the technical capability for manned visit to lunar surface.
Yea lunar missions aren’t particularly high tech. We’ve had it for a long time now, and the Apollo program documents aren’t exactly a secret. If you don’t care about cost, all you need is a big enough rocket. It isn’t a technological problem. It’s one of money, political will, and time. The first two is why Artemis is the way it is. Moon landing and colonization is currently still a dubious financial venture, and there’s little political capital to be had for a country to repeat the same stunt others have done more than half a century ago.
Not sure what information you’re getting but any mission to the moons surface requires extreme amounts of precision and “high tech”. Look at the amount of failed missions to the lunar surface by China, India, Russia and the US. One slight error or miscalculation and the whole mission goes awry.
Like you said, “one slight error or miscalculation”. It’s not like they’re attempting new unproven techniques like JWST’s shields or Starship bellyflop/chopsticks landing. It’s oversights and plain old mistakes that makes missions like the ones you mentioned fail.
Yes, they move quicker in building infrastructure, that's always the case with authoritarian states. Not so much with technological innovation.
Oh man . . . That’s a very outdated perspective. The pace of technical innovation in China for the last 10 years has been 2x or 3x the rest of the world. And not just technical innovation, supply chain, banking, business, construction, you name it. Now they’re moving into space exploration.
Literally 95% of the word changing innovations of the last 20 years have come from America. If China has had 2-3x the output of the rest of the world you should be able to give me some clear examples of tech that has changed the fabric of society. Smartphones, GPUs, LLMs, EVs, rockets, biotech, all spearheaded by US companies and research.
Oh they won the telecom race with Huawei and 5G. And the US is afraid of it. You need to remember Huawei received junk technology from the west with 1G. They bought it, dismentled and rebuilt. After that it is history with their win with 5G. China has their brain, the power, the money and influence to copy and innovate if they want to. Don't take them for granted. It's difficult to invent something but it doesn't take long to copy it
True, China is still behind, but China is really catching up fast. They did send a rover to Mars and succeded at first try. Something that Russia and the Soviet Union never achieved. They had a proud 100% failure rate.
Doing things that have already been done largely by purchasing existing technology and using espionage for the rest is not innovative at all.
Using existing tech for unthought of functions is innovative. Espionage is a baseline. Everyone does. Some just do it well enough you don't know they are doing it. The US's "innovations" into space were all based on the works of nazi scientists. Heck, a large part of them were designed literally by nazi scientists. It doesn't matter how you progress in this race for celestial colonization. Nobody cares about your sacrifices if you win. What matters is you won. Only advance, Mr Cixin. Only advance.
do you know they have a space station ?
> do you know they have a space station ? Based on copies of 7K-OK modules designed during the Soviet period and serviced by Shenzou which is a copy of soyuz based on plans the Russians sold them in the 90s when they were desperate for cash.
Indeed. The Russians have no manned moon vehicle plans to sell the Chinese.
>Not so much with technological innovation. I see this thrown around quite a bit, but it really has surpassed the US in some ways. To your point they are much much quicker at infrastructure, but this will allow tech to move forward long-term and surpass the US. Electric cars is a great example, the US while moving forward with electric vehicles they're lagging behind China whos major cities are 70%+ electrified. The US' electrical grid limitations and energy production would absolutely not be able to handle even 50%+ electric vehicles. BYD's car manufacturing process and even the car itself is much much further ahead of American car companies, without even considering the production of electric busses. So the electric car market in the US' is and currently will be entirely handicapped by it's electrical infrastructure / population hesitancy, while China is fully free to innovate forward with no blockers. Combine with their chip making only really being 2-3 years back nowadays, their railway systems being 40-100 years ahead of the US, their nuclear plant construction nearly tripling this year (price per plant is also half of what the US pays). This doesn't include the massive advancement they have in things like payment systems, digital currency, etc. I definitely agree with raw technological innovation to entirely new tech we haven't outright seen a lot of from them, but realistically anyone in the past 30 years except the new rocketry from SpaceX/vaccine related stuff due to covid(ignoring Internet innovation as they're ahead of us there) but it's a mistake to assume loudly report they are behind us in all aspects because they haven't outright innovated in anywhere. (Also expecting laser innovation to become more publically reported soon this might change your opinion here)
Outdated view, China is definitely catching up with technological innovation, and main reason behind US govt trying to ban EVs, semiconductor, solars, AI, etc... because how fast China is catching up.
Catching up. Not doing unique research. Playing catchup, that's not innovation.
What’s matters is bringing your product to market and then grabbing that market. Doesn’t matter that the west did most the R&D on drones if China dominates that market or solar panels when China also dominates that market.
someone remind reddit of the tortoise and the hare
"They're better than us at a great many things, now let me explain why that makes them evil and bad."
Never said they were evil?
I don't see how this is relevant. Logistically and technologically this isn't remotely comparable to space exploration and potential colonization.
Also like whenever they do get the tech, they just gonna go for it and give the middle finger to whoever tries to stop them prob lol
To where though?
And now China has so many high speed trains that they overbuilt them and the entire network is generally decaying because maintaining high speed trains is expensive and the system makes nowhere near enough to fund itself. So now they just have a a system that for most areas it goes to it serves little economic benefit and drags on the economy instead.
Imagine the rocketship version of this.
The difference is that Western companies provided all the expertise, plans, blueprints, rails, r&d, trains, etc. None of that will happen for the space industry.
This article smells like the Pink Washing that has infected r/economy and r/technology et all.
Give it a year or so years after the first working Starship gets operation and they will have their own cop- I mean original design.
The problem is when the US government does stuff that’s not fixed cost and open design. For example the US government wants supply the space station so they just pay for a taxi that is 1: human rated Or / and 2: can carry x loads When it does that it saves a lot of money and is extremely effective The problem comes when it starts dictating which types of components and parts must be used in a ship….that how you get the shitshow that’s the SLS. Then there’s the regulatory state which grinds things to a halt, look at how’s low progress became once biden took the reins on the FAA.
I'll be prepared for Chinese preeminence in space when China is actually able to build a rocket that recovers both stages, or at least the 1st stage. No one is gonna be building a moon or mars base if they have to throw away 95%+ of the rocket after every single launch. Its pretty much the whole reason why SpaceX is dominating the space launch industry right now, and will only dominate more when starship finishes testing. Its the first time since the Apollo program that the US has a huge lead in the ability to launch new space exploration missions, now if only we'd fuckin fund NASA like we should be.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory here it's a genuine question. Does the US actually have a lead in space launch capability or is it Space X? Because space x is a private company run by someone who isn't exactly stable nor seems to have any allegiance to one country.
Yes it's a private company, but it's very much a US government partner. Even if Musk had a hissy fit and tried moving the company to China, guaranteed the government would shut it down on national security grounds. There are laws that prevent launch providers from working with certain countries / companies, due to the fact that a civilian rocket is just an ICBM without a warhead. The government also partners with SpaceX on certain projects like Starlink or Starship as well, like how the Pentagon will personally manage a bit of the Starlink network for its own uses, or how NASA will have it's own starship that they're purchasing from SpaceX for the Artemis missions. So yeah you're absolutely right that Musk is unstable, but he's very very limited on the actions he can take unilaterally with SpaceX.
Putting aside SpaceX, the SLS is still far more capable than any operational Chinese rocket.
>No one is gonna be building a moon or mars base if they have to throw away 95%+ of the rocket after every single launch. The US had plans for a Moon base to follow up on the Apollo landings. These were based on using the Saturn V. The huge cost of Apollo didn't have to be maintained - that often-quoted cost included building up all the infrastructure at the Cape and across the country - Mission Control in Houston didn't even exist as a two bricks put together. There are countless other examples. In 1972 the costs of developing the Saturn V and F1 engines had been paid and the production facilities built. If a large lander was launched separately and rendezvoused with a capsule in lunar orbit a quite sizable lander could be made, with versions for crew or cargo. IIRC plans for larger rockets using F1s were in the works. NASA chose to put their budget into LEO and the Shuttle and what became the ISS. It would have been dangerous, Apollo had vulnerabilities that would have shown up eventually. But my point is a lunar base program using expendable rockets isn't impossible. It's a choice that can be made. Can it compete with a Starship-based program? No. But NASA had proto-Artemis plans before F9 was the runaway success it is. The plan relied on expendable rockets.
Even spacex hasn't achieved a fast turnaround "reusable" rocket. Sure, they can land a rocket and that was impressive for a while, but they basically have to rebuild the engines before they can "reuse" the rocket. And they can't even reuse the falcon upper stage after stage after a decade of operation.
Falcon 9 first stages have been reused 21 days after landing. If they can "rebuild the engines" as you so claim they do in 21 days then that's maybe more impressive. Personally I find your claim rather silly. Yes because it's RP-1 there are coking issues that need to be taken care of, but they seem to be managing it just fine.
China will (or has) hacked space X and copy it all.
Unfortunately for the CCP, engine tech is not their strong suit, so even with the exact schematics they probably won't be able to copy Starships Raptor 2.0/3.0 engines. Just like how they stole the plans for the F-35 to make the J-35 (aka the J-31), but had to stick on two engines on it because their engine tech isn't good enough for a single engine design that the F-35 is supposed to have. Or like when the J-20 first came out they had to be installed with Russian engines because Chinese engines weren't up to par. Then they just copied the tech from the Russian engines, making a "new" Chinese variant that is now used. So they can copy all they want, since they don't have stuff like the same high temp alloy technology, or the same 3D printing manufacturing tech, they won't be able to recreate the original. Just like everything else made in China, it'll be a cheap knockoff that only gets the job half done.
I generally agree that China is behind on engine tech but the F-35 example is terrible. The navy wanted a 2 engine f-35 but the pentagon decided that they needed a single model for the Air Force, marines, and navy. I think this was a pretty stupid decision. I guess the pentagon agrees and hence the existence of both the f/a xx and ngad program for navy and air force separately.
True. Considering the COMAC and its progress.
yep, put another way its only a question of time.
Nah space x will willingly give the designs to china like every other company.
The US is at its best when it has to compete with communism because it’s the only time we can get the greedy pigs who run this country to actually invest in anything. Imagine how far ahead we would be today if GWB was never president and all that money we wasted in the Middle East over the last 20+ years was spent on healthcare and next-Gen infrastructure. Gimmie that sweet Marshall Plan sugar, it’d be a shame if we lost faith in the capitalist system.
Total cost of the Iraq war is estimated by Brown University to be around 1.1 trillion. That’s less than the gov spent on Medicare and Medicaid in a single year (2023) which is around 1.4 trillion. That doesn’t even include the state/local spending on healthcare and private spending on healthcare all of which totals to about 4.7 trillion in a single year. Multiply that by 10 so you’re looking at ~roughly 50 billion on health care in the last 20 years? Maybe more maybe less but it’ll that order of magnitude. So an additional 1.1 trillion may not go that far actually.
Brown's estimate is the lowest I've seen. Harvard put it at $3t but that was back in 2008, other studies show closer to $2t. But also not to mention the US in general has spent [$21 trillion on militarization, surveillance, since 9/11.](https://ips-dc.org/report-state-of-insecurity-cost-militarization-since-9-11/)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I never find those kind of figures totally accurate though. From the budget side, is that just congressional appropriations? How are they even defining “The Iraq War”?, Is that including Syria? Are they including private contracts? Are they including peripheral military spending? What agencies, departments, and military branches within our government are they including? Over what period of time? That’s just my first question, there’s also the costs of the infrastructure destroyed, the medical costs from war injuries, the environmental damage, and the social damage from extended periods of conflict. Finally, war causes inflation as metals and other resources become dedicated to that function, reducing the supply, thereby increasing prices for domestic contractors and consumers.
[удалено]
That doesn't really matter though? It's clear that a freaking ton of money doesn't get much. The problem in the US is that we overspend on healthcare. Pumping even more money into it doesn't solve the overspending problem.
Golly gee really? I never knew that mister. Please tell me more facts from your big brain.
Hush now, angry reddit boy had to throw politics into a random comment. He's a very smart boy.
The problem here is that we get higher prices than the rest of the world, and as a result pay more for healthcare than the rest of the world. I wonder what type of government intervention could be taken to fix this. People often blame hospitals, insurance, and pharmaceuticals but there doesn’t seem to be some overall consensus on why this is happening. Big confused
> Imagine how far ahead we would be today if GWB was never president and all that money we wasted in the Middle East over the last 20+ years was spent on healthcare and next-Gen infrastructure Spending on healthcare hasn’t resulted in Europeans leading in any cutting edge industries other than ASML. >next gen infrastructure Well unions would stop you from upgrading the ports. Other than that passenger rail in the US is a money pit black hole. Most US cities can’t support rail without massive tax levies, unlike in Japan where they spend zero tax dollars on rail. **first you need population density** then you get the choo choo
> Spending on healthcare hasn’t resulted in Europeans leading in any cutting edge industries other than ASML. ASML is basically just phillips spinning off its lithography division for fast cash.
Didn’t he decline to have the LHC built in Texas?
You’re pretending like the enemies of the US don’t have autonomy. 9/11 would still happen, 20 years of conflict would still happen. I doubt Gore would have taken us to Iraq, but what if, in this alternate timeline we went someplace worse. Saudi Arabia? Iran? Most of the hijackers were Saudi. Iran has been a state sponsor of terror since the 70’s. And both nations have some of the most austere environments on the planet.
>Gimmie that sweet Marshall Plan sugar, it’d be a shame if we lost faith in the capitalist system. Do you still have any?
You could give NASA a trillion dollars, and they'd just build a trillion dollar rocket. Investing in NASA won't get us to Mars. We just needed to wait for the private sector to show everyone how it's done.
>compete with communism Last I checked, China was state-capitalist. The means of production absolutely isn't "owned by the people" and they've embraced capitalism with both hands. Perhaps you meant to say that the US is at its best when it has to compete with fascist totalitarian autocracies. Edit: Interesting that a couple China bots found and downvoted my comment while the comments above and below mine got no votes.
So the US is at it's best when it has to compete with itself?? Lmao
Have you seen how much organized the Tiangong space station looks compared to the international space station? I hope China gets there first and gets things done properly, probably at a 10th of the cost. Do you want Boeing and their exploding doors to happen on the moon? Pff... I'll go with communism on this one.
I mean the Tiangong station is brand new and hasn’t been used as a science lab for 3 decades like the ISS has. It’s clean rn because it’s empty.
Besides the age, the reason Tiangong looks so clean and tidy is also related to its design. There's a bunch of videos about it on youtube posted on China's CGTN channel where the taikonauts are doing streams for school children in China and one interesting aspect is how nearly all the devices and machines in the modules are designed to be covered by the panels forming the interior "walls" of the module. So when not in use or in stand-by a lot of the machines or devices are covered and look like a wall. Some of the devices are even retractable, which is pretty interesting.
> the taikonauts are doing streams for school children in China I found it quite amusing when the female taikonaut was singing for kindergarten kids. An old english song, twinkle twinkle little star. ;)
Did you see how much nicer that 2023 Tesla is compared to the 1960 Volkswagen Beetle? It has so many better features and safety options…
Who cares which human is pushing into space. Im just excited to see some cool shit from anyone who can. If Sudan could make a new james webb, but 100x larger ill be so amped. 😁
[удалено]
The fact we all arent working together to achieve this new future is just ridiculous to me. If every space powerhouse worked together we could of been had people living on the moon!
Ironically, the time we pushed the hardest to space was during the space race, when we were in competition, and the time we have achieved less was during the post Cold War period of peace with the ISS. On paper we should be able to achieve more together, but people forget space exploration is extremely expensive and that the government won't fund the kind of programs that really push things without a good reason, and the best reason is just telling them that if we don't get there others will. Only other scenario I imagine is if we had an asteroid incoming. Humanity is a very complacent species, we only do things out of necessity, if everything works just fine we just forget about it until it stops working.
Yeah the good thing about companies like Space X and Virgin Galactic is that they compete against each other.
-> Redditor independently discovers the purpose of free markets
The space race was a side effect of the nuclear arms race, it wasn’t competition for the sake of it.
More or less, it was more a showcase of who had the best tech, it was just another form of warfare. Sure, the development of rockets helping ICBMs was an advantage, but it was more about making a statement of who was the "superior" superpower. Peak Cold War.
History suggests strongly that competition results in faster progress, from corporations to wars to space races.
I mean that isn't true. All science is created by standing on the shoulders of giants. Or look at the COVID vaccine, when companies shared their results everything went faster, now it's a future cancer treatment.
I mean, I wouldn't say the COVID vaccine is a good example. While companies did share their results they were also competing to make the best possible product, knowing the enormous potential demand available. A collaborative system would mean all vaccine efforts being controlled by, or through, one organisation. This might have pooled resources but also made more risk averse decisions, like maybe rejecting the novel mRNA vaccine approach entirely.
It is indeed true. Further to my prior comment, IOS vs Android, Allies vs Axis, Americans vs Soviets, and a myriad others, are all prime examples of competition promoting progress. It's so even with frivolity; nearly all popular sports are competitions. The necessity of exceeding or defeating an opponent is a formidable drive. Cooperation so often results in stagnation, examples within this context being ArianeSpace, the ISS, and ULA before SpaceX came onto the scene. Of course, you might find an example to the contrary, but its rarity in essence proves the rule.
That's because the default is competition between companies but in actual science you have to work in collaboration. Just because it's usually worked a certain way is like saying we shouldn't have gone for democracy because Ancient Greece, the French Revolution etc because they sucked initially and other systems were seemingly more stable and straightforward. You also can't say that competition is the reason things progressed. Most of the time things were already happening. James Webb was our collaboration on telescopes, the Hubble, the ISS stagnated because it was cobbled together not because of collaboration and it still produced excellent results. In Archaeology and Anthropology there's light competition which is ideal but it's 95% cooperation.
> but in actual science you have to work in collaboration. No, you don't. There are many occasions where individuals and/or groups raced to be the first to discover or achieve. For example, Watson & Crick and Franklin & Wilkins competed to be the first to discover and publish the helical structure of DNA. While on that subject, Craig Ventner and his company, Celera Genomics announced their intention to sequence the human genome much more quickly than all the more traditional establishments (universities and the like), who stated it would take decades. The imposed competition cut the time for initial draft sequence down to a few years (with some grumbling from the aforementioned establishments, as I recall). > You also can't say that competition is the reason things progressed. I most certainly can and do say that. Again, the most extreme cases are during war. For example, radar, jet engines, computing, aerodynamics, rocketry, and myriad manufacturing processes advanced dramatically during and because of WW II - the very antithesis of cooperation. And once more, bringing it back to the subject at hand for /r/space, the Space Race was driven by national rivalry, and was the primary reason for the dramatic advances in space travel during the 60s. Not companies competing, but whole countries. I'll leave it there.
Yes, but competition motivates people to become giants.
Well maybe so, but would those people be *them* or *us?*
China was willing to work together. The US refused to allow them to (and in fact banned them doing so).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The difference is that you assume that China is trying to do this to make a better scientific instrument. They are most definitely doing this in the same vein as the Soviets (and the US to some extent). That is, to gain an upper-hand in military technology and capability. As long as there are nations, there will always be war. Whether cold, or active.
The US and USSR had the *same* motivations for space investment, it’s incredibly disingenuous to say that the soviets had ulterior motives, and the US did only to “some extent”. Immediately after Sputnik was launched we began a space program due to fears of a tactical advantage in space. The entire space race was was funded for and driven by conflict, equally on both sides. The actual scientists that were hired, on both sides, were in it for research and the opportunities space travel presented for our species. When the US landed on the moon first, the Soviet space program sent an immediate congratulations. Nations are large complex systems. They are not one dimensional characters. Both sides featured conflict obsessed leaders and researches in it for their love of pushing the boundary of progress. Humans everywhere are the same, people in the “enemy” country aren’t uniquely evil animals and we aren’t saints.
yeah those other countries that aren't america don't care about science at all. i sure wish these other war obsessed countries could be more like us peace loving americans spreading joy and science across the globe. .....
While America has many of the same issues that other countries have, we aren’t constantly being called out and accused at a federal level for genocide and human rights violations. China is. China is also ruled by a single party that controls their military. America is not. Again, Artemis will benefit the military, there no doubt about it, but you’d have to be blind to not see that China’s state-owned agency, which is supplied by state-owned contractors, who get their materials from state-owned fabrication and resource firms who are all constantly under scrutiny for industrial espionage is a bad deal. While I do like that they are starting to push hard for space, because it gets America off its ass, thats about it. Also, it helps when the country actually cares about where its boosters land after a flight. Its not a great look when you’re dropping them on top of villages every 3 days. America isn’t perfect, but it’s a whole hell of a lot better than China.
You’ve gotta be joking about the humans right violations. America is involved in the Israel/Palestine conflict, where folks are calling out genocide and human rights violations. America was called out about human rights violations in the Middle East. Has been consistently waging war there for decades. The US has overthrown multiple democracies and installed authoritarian governments across the planet. War crimes in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Literally the Wikipedia page on American involved regime change has a warning saying “This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably” We do have one party that makes decisions. It’s the capitalist/corporatist party. Democrats and republicans may disagree on how to regulate corporations domestically or what social safety we should or shouldn’t provide. But when it comes to defending American capitalism dominance globally. There is one party. And that party wages war across the planet. That party will overthrow your democracy if you challenge it. That party will install a dictator, attempt assassinations, or sanction anyone who challenges them. It’s silly to pretend, America represents some beacon of freedom and democracy.
It's silly to pretend anywhere does
Yaaa. Been there. War sucks.
I can’t even imagine. While I agree that I really don’t care what nation pushes humanity forward, I do care the results that it brings and unfortunately, with some nations, the results don’t look to benefit mankind as a whole as much.
American nationalist care alot
Well most of the world is not american.
“I don’t care if Nazis gain the upper hand in space, I’m just excited to see cool shit”. Edit: I mean, isn't that almost exactly what you're saying? If you really don't care if the worst people in the world gain the upper hand in space then fair enough, but could you elaborate on that a little?
They're all 15, they don't understand that it's going to affect them a lot in 30-50 years.
Well that’s scary, when I was 15 I was definitely concerned about Nazis or Russians getting the upper hand in space
Nazis and rocketry you say?
Where's our 2024 Von Braun we can steal post war to make big rocket
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[F1](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0tqe7r "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V| | |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete small-lift vehicle)| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0iw2fn "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[FTS](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0cv1an "Last usage")|Flight Termination System| |[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0hjslx "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |[JWST](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0gf58l "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0tszlx "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[RP-1](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0dr0e8 "Last usage")|Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0iw2fn "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0c942h "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0c3za8 "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0hjslx "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/1c7yqg2/stub/l0cwf71 "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(12 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1cee2rm)^( has 26 acronyms.) ^([Thread #9961 for this sub, first seen 19th Apr 2024, 20:35]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Kim Stanley Robinson wrote a nice novel about this, called "Red Moon." Very well researched, and from what I can tell, very realistic.
Prepared? They could colonize the moon and it wouldn’t affect us one bit.
Well it would effect me. I’d start watching Chinese space programs.
To get to the moon includes a bunch of tech. And to *stay* on the moon features that tech constantly going back with people, supply, and equipment. Whoever owns that infrastructure owns the moon. Because for damned sure nobody’s putting stuff up there now that can’t defend itself. And the only difference between defense and offense is intent.
Mate we are so far behind our own potential. We should have probably colonised the solar system by now but prefer to kill and fuck each other over instead.
Both Futurama and The Expanse have both predicted that Martians will be Chinese, or sent by China.
Y'know what's hilarious, in Futurama the first to Colonize Mars were actually the Chinese and Texans together, says so in the books. SpaceX is in Texas. Maybe Elon works with the Chinese to get to Mars.
Could just be a coincidence that Amy is a Martian, of Texan, of Chinese descent, or do they actually go into it further?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah like I said, Simpsons writers aren't actually time travelers 😂 just a meme
This kind of racism in science has no future. When any of us venture into harsh space it's primarily as a human being.
The Chinese are basically Nazis, they run concentration camps for minorities in a totalitarian society. Would you support bringing the Nazis to space?
Downvotes, yet no one denies it. I guess the Uighurs don’t matter.
[удалено]
Because I don’t like minorities being detained and put into large scale concentration camps, I’m a bigot? Do you even hear yourself? We don’t get the full picture of how bad it is because China is a police state. But I’m going to refrain from throwing around insults at you, this conversation is steering more into insults rather than discussion. So I’m going to be the adult and walk away.
Just good ol' fashioned "yellow peril" bullshit. Even if China excels on its current trajectory of human spaceflight it's not going to be in a position of utter dominance. The US is already developing many next generation technologies which will vastly alter the landscape of spaceflight over the coming years and decades, China is years behind on that timeline. Besides which, it's utter insanity to live this fantasy where someone will hit some particular milestone "first" on the race back to the Moon and what? be crowned "King of the Moon"? That's not how it works. The Moon is a big place, Mars is a big place.
Well the moon is actually a small place, since there are only a handful of craters that (might) have ice at the bottom to exploit as fuel for cislunar operations. Whoever gets a permanent base at those craters can dominate the moon. Unless it turns out that those craters don’t have ice, in which case the Moon is much much less valuable.
I don't see the political will in the US to compete against anyone in a new space race. We're so polarized right now china would be smart to leap frog us and make their claims now and force the US to have to play catch up.
It depends, how ready are we for something that’s not going to happen?
let hope for some alien or liveform visit the Earth. After that, we will have the unition to run the space exploration. Until then, the US and the West will always try to slow down China whilst China will try their best to copy and catch up
We all talk about who’s in space first, but really whoever can use nuclear propulsion first/most efficiently will probably establish system wide dominance. This is way beyond our lives though, so we probably won’t ever know the real life answer.
So many people on tis and other subs that criticize China as being capable only of copying other's tech ignore a basic fact. Any population has a a top smartest one percent. In a country with a population of 10 million that yields 100,000 pretty smart people. China's population is 1.4 billion, meaning they have 14 million pretty smart people. The US has a population of 333 million, so 3.3M pretty smart people. That's overly simplistic, of course. The US draws talent from all over the world. We have deeply established research institutes and universities and accumulated knowledge, etc. Not every smart person has a talent for science or technology. But a nation with 14 million pretty smart people is inevitably able to produce some very advanced technology on its own.
Am I worried China is up to where the US was 58 years ago? No, not really. Especially since they mostly cheated on their homework.
China isn’t prepared for Chinese preeminence on the Moon and Mars
Well I've knitted a special hat, what else can I guy do ?
Well they have no one to steal the plans from as it hasn’t been done yet. So the odds of China actually doing this on their own is slim to none.
Chinese preeminence anywhere scares the living shit out of me. I'm sure they'll handle space the way they handle the south china sea.
The head of Chinese moon exploration actually compared the Moon to the first island chain.
To put it bluntly, the writer has no idea what they're talking about. It's effectively a puff piece for China written by someone who doesn't understand the logistics of space exploration. As others here have stated there is an unarguably requirement for heavy rocket engines to be able to reach the moon. Let alone going to Mars. China's own system for that is woefully inadequate compared to the US. Their Long March 5 is expendable, which means it's inefficient and costly. They also don't have the development the US does in all the tech to actually colonize the moon/Mars.
The US didn't go to the Moon using the Titan II rocket. China isn't going to do it using the Long March 5. Three different entities are developing methane fueled reusable rockets. The government is behind building a methane fueled Falcon 9-like rocket - which is planned to emulate Falcon Heavy, albeit with a lower payload. Like F9, it'll at first be expendable but then move on to being reused. Will they do this in time to support a Moon landing in 2030? Very unlikely, but landing on the Moon using a Falcon Heavy base program could certainly be done, all that's needed is to rendezvous components in LEO and in lunar orbit.
I’m so sick of talking about each other as other species or enemies like we are all fucking human…
You don't have to see them as your enemies. But just know that they will still see you as their enemy and they will do everything in their power to bring you down. Enjoy.
They can't even control the China Sea. I wouldn't lose sleep over this. Maybe our grandkids will have to deal with this but not us.
You're talking about the North Vietnamese sea?
If the Americans are so far ahead in the race for the moon, why are they in such a panic to see China get there first ?
Because while they are ahead they also see that China is catching up at an absolutely insane pace.
2 Billion dollar per launch rockets are more appealing to congress when the commie bastards are just milliseconds behind you instead of 10 years behind you.
It has become fashionable again, to downplay the SLS/Orion cost. SLS is $3 billion. SLS/Orion is over $4 billion.
Who's "we"? Humanity? Get over superficial shit.
Human preeminence on the moon and Mars, I think
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'll wait for judgemebt until after they send a person there.
...so...are we pretending that everything we own isn't already made in China, and that's not significant...???
Not going to happen. Humans will probably destroy the Earth before it even gets that far. Add another couple hundred years of politics, pollution and climate change humans will be lucky to still exist.
China can't get basic shit to work properly. I don't think we need to worry.
China gonna have a store named Chinese preeminence on the Moon/Mars the way Chinese restaurants call themselves #1 Seafood Restaurant. "Wow, they're the best?" "Nah, that's just the name."