China's Moon-landing Plans And Why the US Is So Worried (cnn.com) 165
"We are in a 21st century space race," U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has said. And this week CNN noted a competition that for decades loomed in the background of geopolitics "is now roaring to the forefront," with China "demonstrating rapid advances in space technology" while the U.S. is "ratcheting up rhetoric about a looming battle for control of the cosmos."
It's the fact that China plans to build a permanent settlement on the moon by 2040 that has prompted an urgent response from [U.S.] lawmakers... They've declared a new space race, and NASA is pledging to build a lunar outpost of America's own.... Both the United States and China plan to send robotic explorers to the south pole later this year, paving the way for human explorers to follow close behind.
The US is relying on the private sector to develop and build low-cost, exploratory robotic landers... Meanwhile, China is aiming to launch its robotic Chang'e-7 mission as soon as this month. The complex endeavor will seek to use four different robotic vehicles — an orbiter, lander, rover and mobile "hopper" — working in tandem to attempt to gather unprecedented data. The effort will include tools to drill for and directly analyze water ice, a feat that the US will only attempt with robotic missions slated for next year at the earliest. "If lunar water ice is successfully located, it could significantly reduce the cost and time required to transport water from Earth, facilitating the establishment of a human base for long-term activities on the moon and enabling further exploration of Mars or deep space," Tang Yuhua, the deputy chief designer of the Chang'e-7 mission, said in a 2025 interview with state media.
The oncoming flurry of south-pole-centric activity, with few established international laws to govern the outcomes, is heightening the drama of this rivalry... But with a much more ambitious goal — a future in which people attempt to flourish within permanent settlements rather than just visit the moon — the stakes of this new space race are even higher, according to Clayton Swope, the deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan nonprofit. "The long-term vision will take generations to execute on," Swope said. "But in my mind, it's a scenario where there are people being born, people dying, their families, children growing up in a place that is not Earth — so that looks a lot like a city, more than it looks like an expedition to the south pole." If such a future comes to fruition, Swope added, his hope is that such extraterrestrial colonies would be governed by rules reminiscent of Western ideals and democratic principles. Whether China would be on the same page is an open question.
China is already fine-tuning its plans for a lunar settlement, CNN writes: The country envisions the International Lunar Research Station, or ILRS, as a sprawling science-focused facility on the moon's surface that can be operated robotically, "with the prospect of subsequent human presence," according to a government's ILRS website. China could partner with Russia to build a massive nuclear reactor to power the base, though questions remain regarding how the war in Ukraine may impact Russia's ability to deliver... China and Russia were mapping these plans long before the US announced its own intention to build a nuclear reactor on the moon last year and detailed its plans for a lunar settlement spanning hundreds of square miles... Who will write the rules? And how, exactly, will the use of lunar resources be policed on the international stage?
Meanwhile, NASA "still does not have a vehicle capable of getting astronauts down to the lunar surface," the article points out: Returning to the moon is not as simple as repeating Apollo. The space agency cannot — and does not wish to — replicate its 20th century lunar-landing success. The supply chains, skilled machinists and factories that built Apollo's rockets, landers and command modules no longer exist. And while the Apollo landings stuck close to the lunar equator, landing near the south pole is substantially more complex and requires more powerful vehicles.... China, meanwhile, has been laser focused on its lunar exploration program since 2004, using its top-down, central planning system to keep resources flowing toward specific goals.
The US is relying on the private sector to develop and build low-cost, exploratory robotic landers... Meanwhile, China is aiming to launch its robotic Chang'e-7 mission as soon as this month. The complex endeavor will seek to use four different robotic vehicles — an orbiter, lander, rover and mobile "hopper" — working in tandem to attempt to gather unprecedented data. The effort will include tools to drill for and directly analyze water ice, a feat that the US will only attempt with robotic missions slated for next year at the earliest. "If lunar water ice is successfully located, it could significantly reduce the cost and time required to transport water from Earth, facilitating the establishment of a human base for long-term activities on the moon and enabling further exploration of Mars or deep space," Tang Yuhua, the deputy chief designer of the Chang'e-7 mission, said in a 2025 interview with state media.
The oncoming flurry of south-pole-centric activity, with few established international laws to govern the outcomes, is heightening the drama of this rivalry... But with a much more ambitious goal — a future in which people attempt to flourish within permanent settlements rather than just visit the moon — the stakes of this new space race are even higher, according to Clayton Swope, the deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan nonprofit. "The long-term vision will take generations to execute on," Swope said. "But in my mind, it's a scenario where there are people being born, people dying, their families, children growing up in a place that is not Earth — so that looks a lot like a city, more than it looks like an expedition to the south pole." If such a future comes to fruition, Swope added, his hope is that such extraterrestrial colonies would be governed by rules reminiscent of Western ideals and democratic principles. Whether China would be on the same page is an open question.
China is already fine-tuning its plans for a lunar settlement, CNN writes: The country envisions the International Lunar Research Station, or ILRS, as a sprawling science-focused facility on the moon's surface that can be operated robotically, "with the prospect of subsequent human presence," according to a government's ILRS website. China could partner with Russia to build a massive nuclear reactor to power the base, though questions remain regarding how the war in Ukraine may impact Russia's ability to deliver... China and Russia were mapping these plans long before the US announced its own intention to build a nuclear reactor on the moon last year and detailed its plans for a lunar settlement spanning hundreds of square miles... Who will write the rules? And how, exactly, will the use of lunar resources be policed on the international stage?
Meanwhile, NASA "still does not have a vehicle capable of getting astronauts down to the lunar surface," the article points out: Returning to the moon is not as simple as repeating Apollo. The space agency cannot — and does not wish to — replicate its 20th century lunar-landing success. The supply chains, skilled machinists and factories that built Apollo's rockets, landers and command modules no longer exist. And while the Apollo landings stuck close to the lunar equator, landing near the south pole is substantially more complex and requires more powerful vehicles.... China, meanwhile, has been laser focused on its lunar exploration program since 2004, using its top-down, central planning system to keep resources flowing toward specific goals.
China will beat the US (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, we’re here! Now what? (Score:2)
NASA is so bureaucratic and heavy it just won't happen.
Speaking of short-lived plans, canany government actually afford an extended lunar vacation?**
So you went to the moon. Now prove you’re not on a fiscal journey to bankruptcy faster than a six-pack family snorting pure Mickey on a Disney cruise through a Disney hotel in a Disney theme park.
** Until we discover and start mining the lunar unobtanium element for warp drive fuel, every trip to the moon is a vacation. We have enough space museums, which would ironically lose their government funding. Bec
Re: OK, we’re here! Now what? (Score:2)
Space had a big ROI once but that's slowed down.
War is still very profitable... For some anyway. And they influence politics.
Re:China will beat the US (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA itself is fine. The meddling from congress over pet projects and slashed budgets is the problem. Leave NASA alone and let them do their job.
Re: China will beat the US (Score:2)
China had bureaucracy for literally thousands of years before the USA was even invented.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is so bureaucratic and heavy it just won't happen.
The US is relying on the private sector to develop and build low-cost, exploratory robotic landers.
Definetily not going happen when you are counting on someone else doing it for you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not saying you're wrong, but note that China has lost zero taikonauts out of a total of 46 in 16 flights. Whereas the USA has lost 17 astronauts out of a total of 400 (Challenger and Columbia flights, and Apollo 1 ground-test.)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you honestly believe this is a fair comparison? Or do I have to list out all of the reasons why it's not?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not trying to argue that China's space program is safer than the USA's, nor is the risk of their missions comparable to those the USA has undertaken. I'm saying they haven't lost anyone in space or on the ground, whereas the USA has.
Here are some updated numbers, after refining my search-phrases:
- China has a total of 41 person-flights into space, by about 30 taikonauts.
- the USA has a total of 914 person-flights into space, by 372 astronauts.
Now, instead of rhetorically asking whether you "have to" lis
Re:China will beat the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond the obvious reason you just mentioned, China has essentially stood on the shoulders of the US & Russia in order to reach their position as a space power. By the time they became serious about space flight, the technology was already very mature. There's something to be said about being the last one to the technology party.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. That's definitely a valid point.
Re:China will beat the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone does that. The US stood on the shoulders of Nazis, and then learned a lot from the USSR's efforts with space stations and long duration missions. During the early years of Apollo, Soviet images of the moon were used by NASA.
There's nothing wrong with it either, we should share knowledge and engineering expertise.
Anyway, the actual reason why China is doing so well here is that they have a proper plan that doesn't keep changing, a realistic timeline for it, and are putting in the resources. They have methodically built up the technology they need. Worth also noting that they are using a different mission profile to Apollo, which the US has now also adopted for Artemis, where they send the lander unmanned to lunar orbit and and then send a crewed vehicle to meet it.
Apollo was so successful because it did what the Chinese always do. Make a plan, stick to it, properly fund it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Worth also noting that they are using a different mission profile to Apollo, which the US has now also adopted for Artemis, where they send the lander unmanned to lunar orbit and and then send a crewed vehicle to meet it.
Actually, that was also the Soviet plan for landing on the moon. Their N1 was not powerful enough to lift a return-capable lander and crew in one go, so they decided to first land an unmanned return vehicle, then, a few weeks later, the manned lander (without the ability to take off again) and let the crew ferry over to the return vehicle once their mission was over.
The design for the crew ferry later became the Lunokhod programme [wikipedia.org].
Re: China will beat the US (Score:2)
Re: China will beat the US (Score:2)
Perhaps they were forced into doing more than they might have done, by the USA deciding not to share...
It seems to be a pattern. The USA tries to keep China down by raising fences/denying it technology/etc/etc, and China adjusts its priorities accordingly, and overcomes the problems and continues to advance.
Re: China will beat the US (Score:2)
And the US stood on the backs of Nazis, who stood in the backs of Jews who stood on the backs of English who stood on the backs of Italy who stood on the backs of Arabs who stood on backs of Greeks who stood on backs of Egyptâ¦
Re: (Score:2)
You missed one, and inexcusably. But understandable, because the missing link is a great offense to so many.
And, no, it is not Islam.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, list some reasons why it is not fair.
Because I have no idea. But I am interested in your oppinion.
Re: (Score:3)
It are merely facts. Of course there are reasons for the USA deaths. They were early to the game and had some problems while the Chinese started when most tech was already known. But it at least debunks the "China doesn't care about safety" claim a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense.
Education of an Astronaut costs astronomical amounts of money.
Re: China will beat the US (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, racist fucking ignorant MORON: the IRGC had STOPPED using that building 15 YEARS ago, and our intel KNEW IT.
It was *NOT* a fucking military school, it was a school for girls. But that automatically makes them NPCs for you, incel.
ah yes the american coporate ideal (Score:2)
To What End? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does China gain some actual advantage or upper hand if they are first, or even only on the moon?
The U.S. landed people on the moon several times. Starting 57 years ago. They haven't been back for nearly 50 years because there was no point. No reasonable justification.
Now China says that they are going to build a base. Great. But for what? And what difference would this make to the U.S.? Why on Earth, or Moon, would the U.S. be "worried"?
do they get mineing rights? (Score:2)
do they get mineing rights?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Resource extraction: The moon is rich in resources such as helium-3, which could be used as a clean and abundant energy source on Earth. Extracting these resources would require a permanent lunar base.
2. Scientific research: A permanent base on the moon would provide a stable platform for scientific research, particularly in the fields of astronomy, geology, and physics. The moon's lack of atmosphere and minimal magnetic field make it an ideal location for studying the universe and the Earth-moon system.
Re:To What End? (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the question assumed reality, your answers do not. Why doesn't China just build a fleet of starships instead?
Re: (Score:2)
They went from working jet aircraft to Sputnik in under 20, and from Sputnik to Apollo 11 in 12. And since then? No one has gotten beyond low earth orbit in over half a century. It's been far more profitable to spend the resources killing brown people al over the world, and profit is now king.
Re: To What End? (Score:2)
Governments wanted ballistic missiles out of the space program and got them.
A government funding push into space at this time just means a new military rationale for spending has been imagined.
Re: (Score:2)
The civilian space program had progressed beyond any then-current military need by about 1964, the Saturn V would have been utterly useless as a weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: To What End? (Score:2)
We don't know if AI data centers in space will be important in the future.
But if they are, a moon base will probably be useful to supply them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, no.... it will be decades before enough lift exists to move even the smallest chip fab to the moon. Not to mention resource extraction, mining, etc..
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps learn to get along rather than be racist?
Idiotic (Score:2)
Casting competition for resources as racist is completely moronic.
Is a land rush racist?
Are water claims racist?
Was the gold rush racist?
Is oil exploration racist?
Trying to prevent China from laying claims to resources that you want or need has nothing to do with racism.
Re: Idiotic (Score:2)
Yes, the gold rush was racist in numerous ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet troll, bro. But, it won't sell. No one will believe that level of stupidity is potentially real.
Re: (Score:2)
Being against China is racist. For the lack of a better word.
After all it is full with Chinese people who you hate for some idiotic reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude ... I have no clue what "woke" even is supposed to mean.
I for my part do not hate a random population because their leaders 40 years ago made mistakes.
Re: To What End? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, technically, per international treaty, nobody can "have the best spots." Legally speaking, there is no real estate that can be owned on the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuke them for orbit? Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Supply them with what?
"We don't know if AI data centers in space will be important in the future."
No, we do.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we do.
Confidence is inversely proportional to IQ.
Re: To What End? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Yeah. That's because we're fighting each other."
"No, no. But I mean, even if we were to pull out today, and if they would come take our base, they would have two bases in the middle of a box canyon. Whoopdee-fucking-doo."
Re: (Score:3)
The Outer Space Treaty was signed almost 60 years ago and covers many of these concerns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The Outer Space Treaty doesn't really help much here. It doesn't include anything about collecting resources, such as water on the moon. It says nobody can claim sovereignty over it, but that doesn't really do much to prevent conflicts over resource exploitation.
It limits the deployment of weapons, but again it's like civilian space programmes on Earth. They may be peaceful, but you can also strap a warhead to the same vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: To What End? (Score:2)
Hand it over? It's the fucking moon. Like you're suggesting handing over the Pacific Ocean. Define whatever the fuck you think that means first.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to paint the Moon red.
Re: (Score:3)
So US will write in white letters Coca-Cola.
Re: To What End? (Score:2)
CHA
Re: (Score:2)
No, they want to paint the Moon pink and draw a Lenin face on it [fandom.com]
Re: (Score:3)
My guess would be trying to bankrupt the USA. It worked against the soviets.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of technological advanmcement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As TFS mentions, there are potentially legal issues arising from this. At the moment it seems like whoever gets there first has some substantial legal claims to resources and land. Even on Earth, just putting a flag on something doesn't actually mean all that much, but settling does.
It is also part of the shift away from the US being some kind of "leader of the free world" and in technology. While an international moon base wouldn't necessarily provide much raw value in terms of resources or military strate
Re: (Score:2)
The pols are the ones worried. This makes them look bad, especially the ones whining about China. Then there is the financial aspect. If the pols can create the "Holy Shit!! Look at what they are doing, we must compete with that", which is shortly followed by bills to spend money on industries in their states that would support space stuff, especially the ones siphoning off that money for campaign contributions to the pols. Think of it as mutually recursive backscratching.
Re: (Score:2)
High orbits, kinetic weapons, the usual stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would be, mostly internal propaganda, sort of like a military parade on steroids. Moon is a lifeless rock, any mining operation there would be absolute light years away from being economical, never mind that it may well be logistically impossible to get the necessary mining equipment there or maintain enough people there to run any sort of mining operation. Any 'permanent settlement' there would as far as I see it be their own version of ISS, with hookers and blackjack, just based on a big asteroid
Re: (Score:2)
Does China gain some actual advantage or upper hand if they are first, or even only on the moon?
The U.S. landed people on the moon several times. Starting 57 years ago. They haven't been back for nearly 50 years because there was no point. No reasonable justification.
Now China says that they are going to build a base. Great. But for what? And what difference would this make to the U.S.? Why on Earth, or Moon, would the U.S. be "worried"?
Some level of competitive bragging rights, most likely. It's gonna be tough to continue to tell us commoners that America is the best of the best of the best at everything that ever could be bested if we have some other country actively trouncing us in some new area, even if there's no immediately obvious profit advantage in that new area. Since profit is, of course, our main priority these days, and exploration and research are no longer considered positives in their own right without a profit result easil
Re: (Score:2)
First one to get there and setup a settlement can take the best spot.
Best resources? Best location for power generation? Best place to communicate with earth easily? Best something else?
Thats assuming anyone knows what is the absolute best spot by the time the settlement is made.
Re: To What End? (Score:2)
There's nothing much to say that China won't share either. China is not the USA. The USA keeps looking in the mirror and thinking it is seeing China.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe to throw rocks.
Better consult Adam Selene.
what this is, y'see, is an energy problem (Score:5, Funny)
America needs to plant a moonbase first, and the problem is just getting enough petroleum there to fuel it. You know for certain that China is just going to run its moonbase on free solar energy, or what we call "Communist" energy, which is against American national security interests, but I'm sure President Trump has it well in hand and we will get our gold-plated Christian Nationalist Trump Moonbase as soon as he's finished prosecuting the vandals who tore up his beautiful American-blue painted reflecting pool, finished the ballroom, and erected the Arch d'Trumph.
Praise him and pass the collection plate! The bidding donations start at $1,000,000,000.
Re: (Score:3)
As soon as Trump finds a contractor willing to paint the craters American Flag Blue (with gold trim around the edges), he works out how to grift off it and he gets told his name will be on the base he will be right onto it. In fact, I reckon he'll be able to post on the socials at least 15 times between now and the end of the year that he has already won the race.
Re: (Score:2)
Arch d'Trumph. Lol
Re: (Score:3)
Yah, more like the Brandenburg Gate. I'm sure Elmo can supply him with swastikas to put on top.
America is past (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:America is past (Score:5, Insightful)
Only idiots think that China is able to do all of this due to cheap labor, especially when labor is becoming a vanishingly small portion of the cost of anything,
China graduates roughly 1.3 million to 1.5 million engineers each year. This drastically outpaces the United States, which produces about 130,000 engineering graduates annually. This creates roughly a 10-to-one gap in raw engineering degree output between the two nations.
Re: (Score:2)
"cheap labor" They make it sound like their space program is based on thousands of people with shovels.
Re: (Score:3)
Not shovels. Pulling on a giant slingshot, probably.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting to compare how the US, the Soviets, and China are approaching this.
The US Apollo programme relied on developing a lot of new technology. Very powerful rocket engines and a very large rocket to get the huge mass into orbit in one go. Two person lander. The Soviets were planning to use a single person lander to save on weight, and even though they still needed a large rocket, it didn't need to be as large as a Saturn V.
The Soviets also wanted to use multiple smaller rocket engines. That has p
Re:America is past (Score:5, Interesting)
The Western business world has changed its focus completely to short term high profit business, because the executives' pay packages are focused on quarterly returns and yearly stock price rises. China on the other hand typically takes the long view. For one example, which is currently receiving a lot of attention:
They saw companies abandoning low-profit long-payback mineral mining and refining operations and picked up the majority of that industrial sector. It's taken decades to pay back the investment, which they planned on, and now they control the critical resource streams feeding our modern civilization. Every Patriot air defense interceptor requires two kilos of rare earth elements, several of which China controls 90-100% of WORLD supply. A Patriot missile requires 2 kilos of REE, an F-35 over 30 kilos, modern advanced radars require gallium, which is ONLY available from China. As someone here on SlashDot remarked a while back, "China doesn't feel a need to help the US to build the weapons it wants to use against them", and they're banning suppliers from selling to Western weapons makers.
This is a very interesting Substack that I follow, this American lives in China and works in the export business, which is mostly what he writes about (with occasional insightful digressions). https://kdwalmsley.substack.co... [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You are a little bit off with your numbers :D
But if this is true: New F-35 aircraft are being delivered with free weights bolted where the radar set should be (to maintain the correct balance), because they can't get any.
Then the situation is far worse than one could imagine. See below.
Imagine you were in a real war?
How would that war be called? "The 7 days war of the US"? Because then they are out of resources? Unlike the Israeli "6 days war".
A radar needs less than 100grams Gallium Nitrid transistors, so
Prosperity leads to democracy (Score:3)
This pattern has worked in both South Korea and Taiwan, so the assumption was made that the Chinese would similarly move to democracy as their people flourished. This proved to be incorrect, but it's not fair to blame one party for this; everyone assumed it.
The crucial shift was their admission to the World Trade Organisation in about 2000 - which gave them largely unfettered access to Western markets. They have played the game amazingly well - in practice stealing tech from joint enterprises as well as mor
Re: America is past (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be. China doesn't much care if the USA is successful or not; only that China isn't held back, which seems to be the USA's MO of late.
Perhaps the USA and China can cooperate.
Lol, I know, I know. The USA is too proud/arrogant/ignorant for that.
Still, it would be nice to see.
Re:America is past (Score:5, Informative)
China is full with unions. They have nearly 2 million trade unions organized under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... ...
Stupid China haters
So I actually read your citation which apparently either you didn't do or didn't expect others to do:
Chinese unionization is fake. It's just another way for China to control workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Get some reading comprehension.
Get the vaguest semblance of a clue about what the words you're reading mean when put together into sentences.
If you want people smart enough to go to the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
Y'gotta stop cutting education and vaccine funding.
Re:If you want people smart enough to go to the mo (Score:4)
Based on the state of education, students relying on AI, who we vote for, etc I'd say in a decade or so we'll be a nation of morons.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you'll have the risk of not voting as you intend. So better leve them in the dark, it's safer. /sarcams
US Fear (Score:3, Interesting)
The US can't stand the thought that we'd have to treat another nation as an equal and not as a client state.
Iron Sky (Score:2)
US trajectory (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia's been a brutal kleptocracy longer than I've been alive. It's slapped a fresh veneer on a couple of times, but that's about it. Despite this, after the burst of progress after WWII and the decline afterwards, here we are decades upon decades later and Russia is still able to launch rockets into space. We laugh at them because they're generally not consider as safe as other nations' space programs, but they do it. For a while longer, anyway.
Maintaining capability is a lot different from creating new capabilities. The US is diving so rapidly and enthusiastically into the kleptocratic model, combined with a revival of rabid anti-intellectualism, that I don't think it will be able to establish a lunar base before it finds it has lost the ability to engineer one.
Re:US trajectory (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The US doesn't have a left, it has a 'less right'
2) Never, outside a few weirdos so small in number as to be irrelevant.
3) Regardless of the first two items, what's your point? "Trump isn't bad because the Democrats would have done this too"? Because everyone is getting tired of that false equivalence.
Lost technology (Score:3)
For anyone who thinks it's ridiculous that the US can't reproduce the Apollo missions, consider this: we can't (due to environmental factors) produce wrought iron anymore (because there are no longer any facilities setup to do so), as a species, and therefore, could not build the Bay Bridge in San Francisco (and I'm sure, any number of others, like the Brooklyn bridge).
The same limitations apply here. They have to redesign the vehicle on first principles because the foundational engineering (not scientific understanding) being used no longer exists. Most people simply do not realize how precariously our technological world hangs in the balance. It's why highly advanced ancient cultures collapsed, in large degree: they couldn't just start at the lower level again before working their way back to 'advanced civilization', they had to start all the way at zero again.
Here's a fun one I like playing with my kids, kind of the nerdy science version of the polysci "go back in time to kill Baby Hitler: which one scientific understanding would you bring back in time to Ancient Rome/the American Revolution/the 1950s/etc. and why? Dollars to donuts they'll say something like "the lightbulb" and not consider that it's at least 3 distinct discoveries and inventions, nevermind the engineering.
Re: (Score:3)
we can't (due to environmental factors) produce wrought iron anymore (because there are no longer any facilities setup to do so), as a species, and therefore, could not build the Bay Bridge in San Francisco (and I'm sure, any number of others, like the Brooklyn bridge).
The Bay Bridge was not built with wrought iron. Nor was the new eastern section which we just replace.
Not having wrought iron production around anymore is not due to the decadence of the "species" and quite the opposite. It is due to advancement in technology making that material obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
Capture the flag (Score:2)
Afterward it's America's turn again to get the red flag.
Space is the ultimate high ground (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. Which system are you saying produces the borg drones? It's not at all clear.
Besides that was a bad analogy. The UFP (and Starfleet) always was a socialist utopia.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
U.S. Plan Much More Ambitious (Score:3)
The Chinese manned landing program includes a lander with just a bit more mass than Apollo. The U.S. plan includes a 100+ft tall Starship-based lander. It's a huge amount of mass to get to the moon and far beyond what any earth-launched rocket could get to trans-lunar orbit without refueling. Hence, the U.S. program being dependent on multiple in-orbit refuelings. They'll need to launch at least half a dozen rockets from earth to get anything to the moon, while the Chinese only need one.
Given that the Starship is still nowhere close to its planned 200T to low-earth orbit (v3 is supposedly capable of 100T, but V2 was only 30T), the U.S. concept is still a long way from being ready. Meanwhile, the fairly conventional Chinese launch vehicle (Long March 10) has already launched and is gearing up for its first orbital test next month. To be fair, Starship has flown too and is also gearing up for an orbital launch, but they still don't have the payload, refuel, and heat shields fully figured out. Unlike the Starship, they aren't trying to make the Long March 10 reuseable.
A long-ago irony (Score:2)
JFK initiated the "space race" with his call to send a man (i.e., an American) to the moon and safely return him. When it finally happened in 1969, his arch-enemy Nixon was president, so it is Nixon's name which is on the commemorative plaque sitting on the moon.
"For All Mankind" TV as unexpected cautionary tale (Score:3)
Re: perhaps we could observe (Score:2)
I nominate argStyopa and Elon for the first permanent moon residency. I can't think of more brave patriotic heroes for this mission, no this honor. Go protect us from the Chinese, or suck start a rifle up there, Idgaf.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, politically-motivated snark on slashdot. I couldn't have designed a better reply myself.
I don't like Elon much as a person, but please - go ahead and let me know who ELSE in the US (or "the west" generally, lol) is *anywhere near* competitive with an aggressive, dynamic, and far more risk-tolerant Chinese space program?
This is precisely my point. This is barely even a tech-adjacent site any more, and for people here - who literally can't stop injecting Trump (or proxies) into every goddamned iss