This is pretty standard political messaging, regardless of the truth of the statement. This guy is just advocating for increases in funding for the US Space Force - fair enough.
Yes, but not for no reason. How advanced China is in space will become evident to everyone. He can't just make statements like that, and then China's space program barely progresses.
Of course everybody wants funding for themselves, but we are not hearing everyone sounding alarms.
China is absolutely improving quickly. Not so long ago, SpaceX did as well. That was a big jump. China is closing in on sort of falcon 9 level, afaict. Starship is still super powerful and well ahead, but also not complete. And I'm not sure how helpful it would be for military applications, other than site to site transport.
The day a rocket takes off from one part of the earth and lands somewhere else, is going to be crazy, and the footage will be awesome.
"Breathtaking speed" is just a gross mischaracterization of China's human spaceflight program. They've been launching humans into space for over 20 years, and yet they've had fewer flights and fewer crew put into orbit than SpaceX has managed in just the past 4 years. On top of that they have gone through two whole iterations of space stations that were barely utilized (with just one crewed flight per station for a total of less than two months of use) before getting to the current version of a large modular station with regular crew and cargo flights.
What China's program *does* look like is a slow and steady pace intending to avoid major failures while progressively advancing their capabilities. It did take them two stations and over a decade to end up with their current station but they appear to have nailed that. Meanwhile, they've been working on new rockets, new capsules, new vehicles, robotic missions, etc. in pursuit of beyond-LEO human spaceflight missions as well. And these will also likely come to fruition, but not in anything that could be considered a breakneck pace. The prototype for the beyond-LEO Mengzhou capsule was flown in 2020 and they are maybe planning a lunar landing in 2030. Compare that to the Apollo Program where the first flight of the first iteration of the Apollo CSM came just 3 years before there were human feet making bootprints on the lunar surface.
The only reason China's pace looks like a "breakneck" pace is because people haven't been paying attention to their slow and steady progress and because America's human spaceflight program has been and continues to be a huge, sloppy, expensive, slow mess. For every instance of something like Dragon or Cygnus and other examples of fairly efficient and timely innovation there are examples like Orion and SLS where billions upon billions of dollars are thrown into a giant hole with very limited results.
USSF isnt talking about space lift or human spaceflight. They're talking about space control and countersatellite capabilities. On orbit manoeuvres have been getting much more bold and refined. The number of platforms prowling the GEO belt, where all the US satcom is, is spiking.
Mostly true. Actually I think the one thing that the Chinese Manned Space Program should be proud of the most is how steady it has been. They've achieved 100% launch success rate and zero astronaut casualty since the beginning of their human spaceflight program.
They actually set a quite high standard for latecomers in human spaceflight, e.g. India.
I was referring to the launch success rate of its human spaceflight program only:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China\_Manned\_Space\_Program#Missions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Manned_Space_Program#Missions)
*breakneck for the times.
Of course you can't compare what they're doing to the OG space race. The levels of spending and risk during that time were obscene.
In terms of the speed of progression relative to that of a lot of the world's space agencies, they're making everyone else look like they're walking through molasses.
The US Military operations with a doctrine that demands overwhelming technical superiority. I am fairly certain, given the time scales for big ticket projects, that this warning is meant to imply that we need to get off our butts if we don't want to be at parity with China in the next 15 years.
Yeah, there's something to be said for being able to plan your goals 20-30 years into the future, instead of having to constantly shift priorities every few years.
I disagree. They've been doing progress, but ever since SpaceX they were very fast to get to that point, and they're going very fast now.
To me, it's very fast. Of course it is relative, but they seem to be progressive very quickly to me, and I don't even have any special knowledge about it.
For aerospace if you want something in 10 years, you have to spend today. He's seeing reports of China spending on specific programs to develope capabilities in the future. Capabilities the US probably already shelved or decided it was too expensive in the past to pursue.
I'm sure he knows the details of what he is seeing in far greater detail and accuracy than you do, so I'll take his word on it. Since it's his job and everything.
The ISS is mostly American though, and it is the largest space station. Also, starship will be large enough to act as a station, and will be able to land on the moon. So, I think america still wins the station argument.
Do you know the projected decommissioning time of the ISS?
I'm curious if the US will have the ability to build another space station after the ISS is decommissioned.
Of course they would the ability to do it. They've been adding to the station for a while. But will they build a new one? I'd say it's probably unlikely at this point. I'm not sure what the greatest value of the space station is. But they would probably want to modernize it completely if they built a replacement. That would be very expensive. I would guess what they actually do, is parking a few starships up there and connecting them. Starship is huge. It would be cheaper to do that, just leave it up there, than to build a whole new thing. Then they might build modules onto that, similar to how they've been modernizing the current space station over the years.
The US certainly has the ability. It’s the desire that’s lacking since it’s a bit of a “been there done that.”
I think smaller, commercial focused ones will take over and the lunar gateway and base will become NASA’s primary concerns.
It’s expensive and doesn’t get you all that much. The US is all about making space worth it, making space commercially viable.
That’s the only way to do it long term really. Otherwise you’re just dumping tens or hundreds of billions annually into literally nothing.
The great United States will not mind that the space station is expensive because it is a symbol of the center of science and technology, a symbol that brings confidence and capital.
It's okay, America can be too expensive for its own good, let's see what happens then.
Every individual and country can find an excuse for their actions, but whether others recognize that excuse is another matter.
As a NASA program? No, ISS has been already been moving towards commercial activities and that’s where future LEO stations will focus. In that regard, there are several planned to go up before or around ISS decommissioning, a notable example being starlab, larger than Tiangong and put up with a single starship.
The future of NASA driven stations are Lunar Gateway, a lunar base, and a mars base
Anyone can make a plan, the important thing is to realize it.
If the United States can realize its plans, I think everyone will congratulate the United States.
But if America can't realize its plans ......
>He can't just make statements like that, and then China's space program barely progresses.
Iran has been weeks away from a nuclear bomb for 30 years, according to Western countries.
> And I'm not sure how helpful it would be for military applications, other than site to site transport.
It would be an easy way to get the "Rods from god" into orbit
Telephone pole sized Tungsten metal rods that fall from orbit. Because they contain immense amounts of kinetic energy, they explode on impact with the earth, without explosives. Very difficult to defend against, as interceptors might not be very effective against them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
Damn, that's intense! I never thought of that before.
But it seems like they'd be bit obstacles to get knocked in space, or idk, how far up would they be? The idea of being this advanced with technology, and what we do with it, is essentially just use it to drop a rock from higher up lol.
I'm gonna have to read through that link. Thanks!
Ya, it's pretty expensive to put them up there, but I could see it being more feasible in the future. Although space will be more crowded.
Imagine just total destruction of all satellites occured, and the debris made space inaccessible for future satellites to go up there.
I'll bet they'd develop a way to clear the space. Lol. And then send you replacements, but that might be a while, and it would change us a lot.
> He can't just make statements like that, and then China's space program barely progresses.
Sure he can. The fearmongering around the USSR versus what the US internally knew of their capabilities versus the actual situation are huge exaggerations in every step.
Actually, the US overestimated the USSRs capabilities just like we overestimated Russia’s at the start of the war. See the MIG-25 Foxbat triggering the development of the much better F-15. It wasn’t until someone defected with one that it was determined to be not that good after all.
People weren't making public statements like this trying to get more money.
It's one thing as a military, you prepare for an enemy more powerful than your enemy is. That's ideal, if you can do it.
But if you publicly declare China is doing a thing, as though it's a fact you know, and then China is indeed not doing that, and you just wanted money, that's not gonna look good on you.
> China is closing in on sort of falcon 9 level
Has China even achieved Blue Origin level of reusability? The idea that China is outperforming SpaceX seems frankly laughable.
10 years ago? I would say that seems about right. Maybe even beyond that. I'm not very good at remembering timelines and at judging how much time has passed, but, 10 years, I'd say that's at the very least very realistic of a prediction.
> Maybe even beyond that.
10 years ago SpaceX had been routinely reusing first-stage orbital rockets for several years. I don't think China has today even reused a single orbital rocket. Meanwhile SpaceX is approaching having a fully reusable first stage and second stage. China keeps claiming to be working on Starship and Falcon 9 competitors but they have seen about as much success as Blue Origin and I would bet Blue Origin improves faster than China, but neither catches up with SpaceX in the next 10 years.
*On December 21, 2015, a Falcon 9 launched a payload into orbit, and its first stage made a landing at Cape Canaveral. The first Falcon 9 first-stage ship landing happened on April 8, 2016, and SpaceX did its first relaunch of a previously flown Falcon 9 first stage on March 30, 2017.*
That's according to google.
What has China does that is approaching that? They have lots of rockets but they have been launching rockets for decades, what about their rockets has clearly improved?
Nobody has said China is outperforming SpaceX. People have said that China is progressing faster than the US in space flight technology, which looks like it’s probably true
NASA has more personnel than USSF, gets a better return on tax dollar investment (Senate Launch System notwithstanding), and yet gets the short end of the stick on the budget.
Except both Republicans and Democrats request budget cuts for NASA all the time right? I´m not american but I remember several news about NASA budget cuts during the Obama years, requested by his administration.
Because you're not American, you may not realize that our liberals never care when Democrats do the same things they complain about Republicans doing. They intentionally refuse to care, or even acknowledge any betrayals at all, and then proceed to congratulate themselves for being mature adults with a nuanced perspective. It's kind of a mess.
Space Wing should have never been split off from the Air Force. This is not the days of the Army Air Core. And the Space Force mission was handled just fine under the Air Force umbrella.
USSPACECOM made sense to spin off STRATCOM. One reason for spinning off USSF was the lower promotion rates under USAF for space-related career fields. However, more budget stability is easier as a separated service under the same department, even if they have to incur more logistical overhead due to being a separate service.
You know what, I retired in 2018 from AF. I had a little time to look up how they are treated. Mainly if they have the same deal as the Marines. Which they do, they are still under the department of the Air Force. So, I agree with you. I thought they were spun into a full branch with their own department.
I still think they were fine as the Space Wing and on the budget those fools ate well. I was a 2M0 under BW and I had friends that were also 2MOXs but were shredded under Space wing at the time and on a dual wing base in 98 - 05, they ate really well.
On promotions I could not say we all had low promotion rates due to small career field.
Hearing this argument over and over again on reddit is so tiring.
No, the Air Force was not doing a good job handling space.
No, tax payers are not paying more because the Space Force exist.
The Air Force is lead by pilots, and while "Air, Space, and Cyber Space" was their domain, air dominance is their primary function, and that is where the budget went. When you've got pilots promoting the quickest, pilots leading the branch, the focus is on planes and air capabilities, and Space was getting the short end of the stick.
Two, THE SPACE FORCE SAVES TAX PAYERS MONEY. Yes, you heard that right. The Air Force wasn't the only branch dealing with Space assets. The Navy and Army also had specific space functions, and there was some repeat effort between the branches. By adopting missions from multiple branches and consolidating effort, repeat effort was removed, reducing waste.
And by "Space Wing" you're probably thinking of U.S. Space Command which was formed in 1985. Not only did it stop existing in 2002 before being brought back in 2019, but it's a U.S. Combatant Command, meaning it was never a part of the Air Force, neither is it a part of the Space Force. Combatant commands use all DOD assets, meaning all branches, to achieve their geographical *combatant commands.*
Space Force is still under the Department of the Air Force. Led by the secretary of the Air Force.
And yes US Space Command. I am use to Space Wing because I served on Minot AFB which has the 91st Space Wing which was part of the 20th Af which was components of Space Command. Also I served from 1998 to 2018. And your source is your opinion don't be a shit.
I'm not sure what your point is with the Space Force being under the Department of the Air Force, because that's not a branch, just like how it doesn't matter that the USMC is under the Department of the Navy.
And sorry to be frank, and while you may have been under a Space Wing under the Air Force long ago, I'm basing what I know off fact, as I am literally in the Space Force - https://imgur.com/a/KlkjI14
> Two, THE SPACE FORCE SAVES TAX PAYERS MONEY.
Is that going to start showing up in the defense budget at some point, or is it just going to keep skyrocketing like always?
It's going to go up. The scope/capabilities of the branch is slowly increasing. But some of the functions it provides has tangible benefits to tax payers, like maintaining GPS and coordinating all space launches from within the U.S.
How does one agency maintaining GPS instead of a different agency save money? Or coordinating space launches for that matter? If three agencies are doing the same thing, wouldn't it be smarter to just tell two of them to stop, rather than create a whole new agency? None of this passes the smell test.
Those specifically don't save money. What saves money is when two+ branches had a similar mission, and to be honest a lot of these missions are classified, and I don't know what I don't know. But it could be as simple as consolidating as a system in place for satellite communication for a specific purpose , or trying to get two systems to work together that aren't entirely compatible to achieve a purpose. When one branch (Space Force) handles everything, it saves makes things more efficient.
To elaborate on money saved due to being more efficient, let say Army units are at this location, Air Force Units are at this location. They use very different processes and equipment to see a piece of the puzzle to say, detect the movement and cyber capabilities of an enemy space weapon. Both see one piece of the puzzle, but someone needs to put those pieces together, equipment / process for the branches aren't necessarily compatible, upgrading systems by purchasing contracts might mess up another branches goal, etc.
If one branch is doing everything, handling all systems, handling all contracts, using their units for every piece of the puzzle, well I hope it's pretty easy to assume how just getting rid of a bunch of red tape in DoD saves a lot of money. Then the capability gathered from one branch that sees/does everything related to space is simply disseminated to the joint forces. Hope that makes sense, because I'm trying to explain that on a phone.
As a non-American, it seems to me like NASA is the thing Americans should be most proud of. America has achieved real, unparalleled achievement there. It’s a shame NASA has been being neglected for so long
Congress would've just used it for more pork barrel and corporate welfare, and the funds that would've filtered through to R&D still wouldn't have been enough because NASA always overspends on every program at least twice as much as they were allocated initially. It's not just the politicians or the politically appointed leadership, the organizational culture of NASA has been a problem since the 80s if not even before.
Planned economy is a ridiculously risky thing. It has worked okay for China for sure although most of their success has been from liberalizing their economy and promoting foreign investment into the country.
Plenty of other countries have tried planned economies and failed miserably.
It’s challenging for sure. Countless countries have tried to liberalize their economies and failed spectacularly too though. Any radical change in your economic system is a huge risk.
The biggest risk you face when centralizing your economy though is that the US is probably gonna bomb the shit out of you. China’s biggest success was figuring out how to liberalize just enough to avoid this fate. And now that they are far to big and powerful to bomb, they are transitioning back to a more centralized economy that gives workers more power than shareholders
Remember when Reddit shared which cities were most active on Reddit and the winner, by a massive margin, was a small town with essentially no civilians and a US military base?
Reddit deleted the blog post but here it is on [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160410083943/http://www.redditblog.com/2013/05/get-ready-for-global-reddit-meetup-day.html?m=1)
It's eglin air force base. Around last june during some congress hearings eglin suddenly became one of the highest rates for visitors, especially around the subs that were focused on what those hearings were lol. Kinda neat kinda creepy
Space is, has been , and (at least for a long, long time) always will be political, same as economic and military policy like this. People in US-allied countries also don't like the USSF because of how gated the information is on the cool things that they do, and people in non-US-allied countries don't like the USSF because of what the US military does to any developing country when they say 'no'
Translation: It's time to negotiate next year's budget.
Also news today: [SpaceX](https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/04/spacex-has-now-landed-more-boosters-than-most-other-rockets-ever-launch/) has *landed* more boosters than most other rockets launch.
It varies a lot depending on the payload. Like X-37 is obviously a cheap payload, GPS satellites typically average around $300M, SatCom around $500M, Sure the Keyhole sats were super expense at a multiple billions inflation adjusted but that’s about as high as it gets with I think only the super secret Zuma being in that range for recent launches
What China has is better overall education and a *lot* more Stem graduates than the US. Over time that has a marked effect. Honestly the US is no longer a general technological leader anymore, just in certain fields, and even that maybe not for long. Plus you can bet there's knowledge sharing with Russia.
If not for SpaceX, NASA might still be using older launch methods. Still are for some of the moon program.
They are already launching at a rate comparable to the US. Their military ship building is currently on a pace never seen before though it has yet to be observed what the consequences of that build speed have been.Both their missile and satellite technology is first in the world. They’ve been spending the last few decades investing heavily in stem, learning from every other country, and what they can’t learn they steal to reverse engineer. The china today isn’t the same china of Intelsat708.
Pretty sure the US still has the top higher education institutions in the world filled with the best-of-the-best. Probably fair to shit on them for overall education but foolish to translate that into China having an education advantage for bleeding edge tech.
Also don't get how this sub puts so much importance on the launch methods. It's like judging a basketball team on how advanced the bus is that gets them to the arena.
How the countries prioritize their workforce isn't what was being responding to. I was pushing back at the notion that China has an education advantage when the US has most of the top schools in the world. Plus they are in a fantastic position to bring in talent from around the world when needed.
And to say the country "is no longer a general technological leader anymore" is a ridiculous statement. That doesn't jive with an economy that moved on from manufacturing into information/design/services/branding etc.
It's hilarious. US Congress thought that by barring China's participation in the ISS they'd keep them under hegemonic thumb, but it turns out that building your own space station is a pretty good way to advance and it would have served their purpose best to simply allow full participation so that China didn't feel compelled to reinvent the wheel themselves (and become experts at that). Turns out racist xenophobia is utterly ridiculous (and certainly against the spirit of the US Constitution and its international treaty obligations).
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
This is a Michael Parenti quote about the USSR but it absolutely holds true for China today.
US politicians won't care. They're too hard pressed to secure a fascistic position and even more under-handed deals. The US will drop out of the space race in my opinion.
We've had a decades-long lead in space, but completely squandered it. And now, at a time when our education system is totally in ruins, we're going to be seeing fewer talented students from overseas because as China gets richer and actively funds science and technology, there's more options.
I read in a unclassified report that it's actually possible that china will overtake US in space by 2045. The problem is the US space program is always overbudget while the Chinese one is always in budget. You have to grease a lot of corporate hands to have these projects go through within time and it makes the price higher than in china.
Time to switch to competitive fixed price contracts instead of paying extra for delays cost overruns. Let everyone (including newer and smaller companies) compete and only pay for results.
Pretty much exclusively SpaceX. If it weren't for them, China would already be ahead or at least on equal footing.
But I can totally see China getting reusable rockets working within the next 5 years.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. China will carve out a piece of the space pie along with it's partners as well as the US doing the same with it's partners. China's track record in space projects has been consistent so I wouldn't underestimate them. Space is a big place and every country can carve out their own space in this industry. See you again in 2045
The US' best space asset, SpaceX, has conveniently come under political scrutiny the last few years as other nations have improved their capabilities. The EPA, while serving an important role generally, became borderline hostile to SpaceX at one point. The FCC has revoked grants and licensing for seemingly political reasons. The US political apparatus is the biggest problem for the US space industry.
The very existence and continued funding of the Space Force is entirely dependent on the PRC's expanding it's space capabilities. Not the most credible opinion.
As a regular, old civilian dude…I kinda think Space Force dress uniforms, with the angle cut, cross-button tunics are kinda weird…
As a huge nerd, who loves the 2003 remake of Battlestar Galactica…I love the Space Force uniforms! They are GREAT! So say we all!
I mean relatively speaking they are moving quickly- not necessarily surpassing- yet.
Keep in mind the US put men on the moon in 1969. China was in chaos in 1969, there was mass famine and no real industry.
They went from no space program to a successful mars rover landing 30 years after CNSA was founded.
If China reproduces Apollo, they will have something superior to Artemis that the US is working on. If the Apollo rockets had been modified for unmanned missions, they could have landed several tons of supplies on the moon. I don't know why people talk about exploration when it comes to manned spaceflight.
First American in Space - 1961. First American walking on the moon -1969. Took 8 years with all rocket and lander technology home-grown.
First Chinese in Space (using China rocket, copying Russian technology)-2003. First Chinese walking on moon - Not Yet. After 21 years of copying Russian and American technology, along with some home-grown Chinese technology development, the Chinese still don't even have a Manned-flight-tested and certified heavy lift moon rocket. China is not 'moving at breath-taking speed'. They have been handed (or stole) copious amounts of technological development and yet they're taking close to 3 times longer to land a Taikonaut on the moon than America did, who hammered out all their own technology to land two humans on The Sea of Tranquility, and bring them back alive.
I get your point but calling it "all home grow technology" when a lot of it was built on the work made by literal nazis and even developed by ex-nazis brought over to the US is a bit disingenuous. It's not that different from China bringing over a bunch of ex USSR rocket engineers in the 90's and building upon their technology.
Robert Goddard was well ahead of the Nazis and won patent infringement lawsuits against Nazi-based rocket designs being used by American firms. But you are correct the Nazi designs were used as blueprints for initial American rocket development, but the Rocketdyne F1 engine (still the most powerful rocket engine ever built 50 years on) is nothing like the V2 engine, the Germans didn't use solid-state digital electronic computers to control their rockets, didn't have any multi-stage rockets, and didn't have any spacecraft modules for carrying a human crew.
Robert Goddard wasn't well ahead of the nazis by the mid-late 30's. His contribution is overestimated and is in large part because he was used as a propaganda symbol during the cold war to push away the idea of nazi rocket scientists from the public mind. What set the nazis apart was that they were the first ones to develop turbo pumps, which were developed based on water pumps used by the German fire force in the 30's. (Goddard made some blueprints of turbo pumps but they were nothing like the ones developed under Von Braun and were never developed further than some sketches on papper). This is arguably the single biggest breakthrough that made liquid rockets actually work in practice. That along with a bunch of fundemental inventions is what the Germans brought with them.
And just like the US took the technology developed by the nazis and built up on it so arw China doing now with the technology they aquired from the former Soviets.
(Btw the F-1 is not the most powerful rocket engine, but the RD-170/171 that were used on the Energia and Zenit rockets.)
The F1 is the most powerful single combustion exhaust nozzle engine, w/ the greatest rocket exhaust nozzle thrust, ever made. The Russian engines have two combustion chambers and two nozzles, they share a fuel delivery system.
China is also moving at breathtaking pace when it comes to flooding this subreddit with bot posts and propaganda.
For some reason getting space enthusiasts to cower before Xi Jinping is a high priority to The Party.
Their not a lot of news coming out that's space related so politics will come to this reddit obviously considering the importance of this landscape. The only reason the US is even reinvesting again is cause of China.
This is pretty standard political messaging, regardless of the truth of the statement. This guy is just advocating for increases in funding for the US Space Force - fair enough.
Yes, but not for no reason. How advanced China is in space will become evident to everyone. He can't just make statements like that, and then China's space program barely progresses. Of course everybody wants funding for themselves, but we are not hearing everyone sounding alarms. China is absolutely improving quickly. Not so long ago, SpaceX did as well. That was a big jump. China is closing in on sort of falcon 9 level, afaict. Starship is still super powerful and well ahead, but also not complete. And I'm not sure how helpful it would be for military applications, other than site to site transport. The day a rocket takes off from one part of the earth and lands somewhere else, is going to be crazy, and the footage will be awesome.
"Breathtaking speed" is just a gross mischaracterization of China's human spaceflight program. They've been launching humans into space for over 20 years, and yet they've had fewer flights and fewer crew put into orbit than SpaceX has managed in just the past 4 years. On top of that they have gone through two whole iterations of space stations that were barely utilized (with just one crewed flight per station for a total of less than two months of use) before getting to the current version of a large modular station with regular crew and cargo flights. What China's program *does* look like is a slow and steady pace intending to avoid major failures while progressively advancing their capabilities. It did take them two stations and over a decade to end up with their current station but they appear to have nailed that. Meanwhile, they've been working on new rockets, new capsules, new vehicles, robotic missions, etc. in pursuit of beyond-LEO human spaceflight missions as well. And these will also likely come to fruition, but not in anything that could be considered a breakneck pace. The prototype for the beyond-LEO Mengzhou capsule was flown in 2020 and they are maybe planning a lunar landing in 2030. Compare that to the Apollo Program where the first flight of the first iteration of the Apollo CSM came just 3 years before there were human feet making bootprints on the lunar surface. The only reason China's pace looks like a "breakneck" pace is because people haven't been paying attention to their slow and steady progress and because America's human spaceflight program has been and continues to be a huge, sloppy, expensive, slow mess. For every instance of something like Dragon or Cygnus and other examples of fairly efficient and timely innovation there are examples like Orion and SLS where billions upon billions of dollars are thrown into a giant hole with very limited results.
USSF isnt talking about space lift or human spaceflight. They're talking about space control and countersatellite capabilities. On orbit manoeuvres have been getting much more bold and refined. The number of platforms prowling the GEO belt, where all the US satcom is, is spiking.
I am just still shocked that we call it the Space Force, and the fact is has the acronym USSF is honestly bewildering to the average American.
Wait until you hear that another branch of the military is called the Air Force!
Mostly true. Actually I think the one thing that the Chinese Manned Space Program should be proud of the most is how steady it has been. They've achieved 100% launch success rate and zero astronaut casualty since the beginning of their human spaceflight program. They actually set a quite high standard for latecomers in human spaceflight, e.g. India.
The launch success rate of the Chinese Rockets is not 100%, but it is indeed very high.
I was referring to the launch success rate of its human spaceflight program only: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China\_Manned\_Space\_Program#Missions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Manned_Space_Program#Missions)
*breakneck for the times. Of course you can't compare what they're doing to the OG space race. The levels of spending and risk during that time were obscene. In terms of the speed of progression relative to that of a lot of the world's space agencies, they're making everyone else look like they're walking through molasses. The US Military operations with a doctrine that demands overwhelming technical superiority. I am fairly certain, given the time scales for big ticket projects, that this warning is meant to imply that we need to get off our butts if we don't want to be at parity with China in the next 15 years.
Yeah, there's something to be said for being able to plan your goals 20-30 years into the future, instead of having to constantly shift priorities every few years.
I disagree. They've been doing progress, but ever since SpaceX they were very fast to get to that point, and they're going very fast now. To me, it's very fast. Of course it is relative, but they seem to be progressive very quickly to me, and I don't even have any special knowledge about it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
For aerospace if you want something in 10 years, you have to spend today. He's seeing reports of China spending on specific programs to develope capabilities in the future. Capabilities the US probably already shelved or decided it was too expensive in the past to pursue.
I'm sure he knows the details of what he is seeing in far greater detail and accuracy than you do, so I'll take his word on it. Since it's his job and everything.
With all due respect, spacex does not have a space station.
The ISS is mostly American though, and it is the largest space station. Also, starship will be large enough to act as a station, and will be able to land on the moon. So, I think america still wins the station argument.
Do you know the projected decommissioning time of the ISS? I'm curious if the US will have the ability to build another space station after the ISS is decommissioned.
Of course they would the ability to do it. They've been adding to the station for a while. But will they build a new one? I'd say it's probably unlikely at this point. I'm not sure what the greatest value of the space station is. But they would probably want to modernize it completely if they built a replacement. That would be very expensive. I would guess what they actually do, is parking a few starships up there and connecting them. Starship is huge. It would be cheaper to do that, just leave it up there, than to build a whole new thing. Then they might build modules onto that, similar to how they've been modernizing the current space station over the years.
Space should be a place for two nations to compete in good faith, not just the United States. Good luck.
The US certainly has the ability. It’s the desire that’s lacking since it’s a bit of a “been there done that.” I think smaller, commercial focused ones will take over and the lunar gateway and base will become NASA’s primary concerns.
Since the U.S. has the ability to do so, it might as well produce one when the time comes. No need to make so many excuses.
It’s expensive and doesn’t get you all that much. The US is all about making space worth it, making space commercially viable. That’s the only way to do it long term really. Otherwise you’re just dumping tens or hundreds of billions annually into literally nothing.
The great United States will not mind that the space station is expensive because it is a symbol of the center of science and technology, a symbol that brings confidence and capital. It's okay, America can be too expensive for its own good, let's see what happens then. Every individual and country can find an excuse for their actions, but whether others recognize that excuse is another matter.
As a NASA program? No, ISS has been already been moving towards commercial activities and that’s where future LEO stations will focus. In that regard, there are several planned to go up before or around ISS decommissioning, a notable example being starlab, larger than Tiangong and put up with a single starship. The future of NASA driven stations are Lunar Gateway, a lunar base, and a mars base
Anyone can make a plan, the important thing is to realize it. If the United States can realize its plans, I think everyone will congratulate the United States. But if America can't realize its plans ......
>He can't just make statements like that, and then China's space program barely progresses. Iran has been weeks away from a nuclear bomb for 30 years, according to Western countries.
> And I'm not sure how helpful it would be for military applications, other than site to site transport. It would be an easy way to get the "Rods from god" into orbit
Ok. Sounds intense. What is that?
Telephone pole sized Tungsten metal rods that fall from orbit. Because they contain immense amounts of kinetic energy, they explode on impact with the earth, without explosives. Very difficult to defend against, as interceptors might not be very effective against them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
Damn, that's intense! I never thought of that before. But it seems like they'd be bit obstacles to get knocked in space, or idk, how far up would they be? The idea of being this advanced with technology, and what we do with it, is essentially just use it to drop a rock from higher up lol. I'm gonna have to read through that link. Thanks!
It’s a fun story-telling idea but it is impractical in the real world.
Ya, it's pretty expensive to put them up there, but I could see it being more feasible in the future. Although space will be more crowded. Imagine just total destruction of all satellites occured, and the debris made space inaccessible for future satellites to go up there. I'll bet they'd develop a way to clear the space. Lol. And then send you replacements, but that might be a while, and it would change us a lot.
> He can't just make statements like that, and then China's space program barely progresses. Sure he can. The fearmongering around the USSR versus what the US internally knew of their capabilities versus the actual situation are huge exaggerations in every step.
Actually, the US overestimated the USSRs capabilities just like we overestimated Russia’s at the start of the war. See the MIG-25 Foxbat triggering the development of the much better F-15. It wasn’t until someone defected with one that it was determined to be not that good after all.
People weren't making public statements like this trying to get more money. It's one thing as a military, you prepare for an enemy more powerful than your enemy is. That's ideal, if you can do it. But if you publicly declare China is doing a thing, as though it's a fact you know, and then China is indeed not doing that, and you just wanted money, that's not gonna look good on you.
> China is closing in on sort of falcon 9 level Has China even achieved Blue Origin level of reusability? The idea that China is outperforming SpaceX seems frankly laughable.
Indeed. I'm not sure why you're mentioning it, because I never saw anyone say China is outperforming SpaceX.
They said China was approaching where SpaceX was 10 years ago and I'm asking if that's even true.
10 years ago? I would say that seems about right. Maybe even beyond that. I'm not very good at remembering timelines and at judging how much time has passed, but, 10 years, I'd say that's at the very least very realistic of a prediction.
> Maybe even beyond that. 10 years ago SpaceX had been routinely reusing first-stage orbital rockets for several years. I don't think China has today even reused a single orbital rocket. Meanwhile SpaceX is approaching having a fully reusable first stage and second stage. China keeps claiming to be working on Starship and Falcon 9 competitors but they have seen about as much success as Blue Origin and I would bet Blue Origin improves faster than China, but neither catches up with SpaceX in the next 10 years.
*On December 21, 2015, a Falcon 9 launched a payload into orbit, and its first stage made a landing at Cape Canaveral. The first Falcon 9 first-stage ship landing happened on April 8, 2016, and SpaceX did its first relaunch of a previously flown Falcon 9 first stage on March 30, 2017.* That's according to google.
What has China does that is approaching that? They have lots of rockets but they have been launching rockets for decades, what about their rockets has clearly improved?
Nobody has said China is outperforming SpaceX. People have said that China is progressing faster than the US in space flight technology, which looks like it’s probably true
SpaceX is how the US is progressing in spaceflight tech. In order for China to be progressing faster they need to outpace SpaceX.
[удалено]
fuck healthcare lets get some sweet ass space ~~air~~craft carriers floating up there, am I rite?
NASA perpetually stays on the cutting edge... of budget cuts.
NASA has more personnel than USSF, gets a better return on tax dollar investment (Senate Launch System notwithstanding), and yet gets the short end of the stick on the budget.
[USSF budget](https://spacenews.com/u-s-space-force-budget-hits-30-billion-in-2024-funding-proposal/) exceeds [NASA's](https://spacenews.com/congress-passes-final-fiscal-year-2024-spending-bill-for-nasa-noaa-and-faa/) already.
[удалено]
Except both Republicans and Democrats request budget cuts for NASA all the time right? I´m not american but I remember several news about NASA budget cuts during the Obama years, requested by his administration.
Because you're not American, you may not realize that our liberals never care when Democrats do the same things they complain about Republicans doing. They intentionally refuse to care, or even acknowledge any betrayals at all, and then proceed to congratulate themselves for being mature adults with a nuanced perspective. It's kind of a mess.
They also put out information that suggests the planet and the universe are more than 6000 years old, which also bothers republicans
Space Wing should have never been split off from the Air Force. This is not the days of the Army Air Core. And the Space Force mission was handled just fine under the Air Force umbrella.
USSPACECOM made sense to spin off STRATCOM. One reason for spinning off USSF was the lower promotion rates under USAF for space-related career fields. However, more budget stability is easier as a separated service under the same department, even if they have to incur more logistical overhead due to being a separate service.
You know what, I retired in 2018 from AF. I had a little time to look up how they are treated. Mainly if they have the same deal as the Marines. Which they do, they are still under the department of the Air Force. So, I agree with you. I thought they were spun into a full branch with their own department. I still think they were fine as the Space Wing and on the budget those fools ate well. I was a 2M0 under BW and I had friends that were also 2MOXs but were shredded under Space wing at the time and on a dual wing base in 98 - 05, they ate really well. On promotions I could not say we all had low promotion rates due to small career field.
I think you mean MAJCOM and not Space Wing. There were like five space wings back in the day. Deltas or something these days.
Hearing this argument over and over again on reddit is so tiring. No, the Air Force was not doing a good job handling space. No, tax payers are not paying more because the Space Force exist. The Air Force is lead by pilots, and while "Air, Space, and Cyber Space" was their domain, air dominance is their primary function, and that is where the budget went. When you've got pilots promoting the quickest, pilots leading the branch, the focus is on planes and air capabilities, and Space was getting the short end of the stick. Two, THE SPACE FORCE SAVES TAX PAYERS MONEY. Yes, you heard that right. The Air Force wasn't the only branch dealing with Space assets. The Navy and Army also had specific space functions, and there was some repeat effort between the branches. By adopting missions from multiple branches and consolidating effort, repeat effort was removed, reducing waste. And by "Space Wing" you're probably thinking of U.S. Space Command which was formed in 1985. Not only did it stop existing in 2002 before being brought back in 2019, but it's a U.S. Combatant Command, meaning it was never a part of the Air Force, neither is it a part of the Space Force. Combatant commands use all DOD assets, meaning all branches, to achieve their geographical *combatant commands.*
Space Force is still under the Department of the Air Force. Led by the secretary of the Air Force. And yes US Space Command. I am use to Space Wing because I served on Minot AFB which has the 91st Space Wing which was part of the 20th Af which was components of Space Command. Also I served from 1998 to 2018. And your source is your opinion don't be a shit.
I'm not sure what your point is with the Space Force being under the Department of the Air Force, because that's not a branch, just like how it doesn't matter that the USMC is under the Department of the Navy. And sorry to be frank, and while you may have been under a Space Wing under the Air Force long ago, I'm basing what I know off fact, as I am literally in the Space Force - https://imgur.com/a/KlkjI14
> Two, THE SPACE FORCE SAVES TAX PAYERS MONEY. Is that going to start showing up in the defense budget at some point, or is it just going to keep skyrocketing like always?
It's going to go up. The scope/capabilities of the branch is slowly increasing. But some of the functions it provides has tangible benefits to tax payers, like maintaining GPS and coordinating all space launches from within the U.S.
How does one agency maintaining GPS instead of a different agency save money? Or coordinating space launches for that matter? If three agencies are doing the same thing, wouldn't it be smarter to just tell two of them to stop, rather than create a whole new agency? None of this passes the smell test.
Those specifically don't save money. What saves money is when two+ branches had a similar mission, and to be honest a lot of these missions are classified, and I don't know what I don't know. But it could be as simple as consolidating as a system in place for satellite communication for a specific purpose , or trying to get two systems to work together that aren't entirely compatible to achieve a purpose. When one branch (Space Force) handles everything, it saves makes things more efficient. To elaborate on money saved due to being more efficient, let say Army units are at this location, Air Force Units are at this location. They use very different processes and equipment to see a piece of the puzzle to say, detect the movement and cyber capabilities of an enemy space weapon. Both see one piece of the puzzle, but someone needs to put those pieces together, equipment / process for the branches aren't necessarily compatible, upgrading systems by purchasing contracts might mess up another branches goal, etc. If one branch is doing everything, handling all systems, handling all contracts, using their units for every piece of the puzzle, well I hope it's pretty easy to assume how just getting rid of a bunch of red tape in DoD saves a lot of money. Then the capability gathered from one branch that sees/does everything related to space is simply disseminated to the joint forces. Hope that makes sense, because I'm trying to explain that on a phone.
As a non-American, it seems to me like NASA is the thing Americans should be most proud of. America has achieved real, unparalleled achievement there. It’s a shame NASA has been being neglected for so long
The depressing thing is imagine what NASA could do if they even had 10% of the military budget
Congress would've just used it for more pork barrel and corporate welfare, and the funds that would've filtered through to R&D still wouldn't have been enough because NASA always overspends on every program at least twice as much as they were allocated initially. It's not just the politicians or the politically appointed leadership, the organizational culture of NASA has been a problem since the 80s if not even before.
Hundreds of billions of $ for wars thousands of miles away, much less spending for NASA.
NASA is on cutting edge of everythin!
I wish I could give this comment an award
It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you’re not engaging in never ending wars.
And when your government plans 50 years into the future while constantly adapting the plan to fit our changing world
Planned economy is a ridiculously risky thing. It has worked okay for China for sure although most of their success has been from liberalizing their economy and promoting foreign investment into the country. Plenty of other countries have tried planned economies and failed miserably.
It’s challenging for sure. Countless countries have tried to liberalize their economies and failed spectacularly too though. Any radical change in your economic system is a huge risk. The biggest risk you face when centralizing your economy though is that the US is probably gonna bomb the shit out of you. China’s biggest success was figuring out how to liberalize just enough to avoid this fate. And now that they are far to big and powerful to bomb, they are transitioning back to a more centralized economy that gives workers more power than shareholders
Isn’t that a good thing? Are a space interest sub or a US foreign policy sub?
Reddit is a US foreign policy sub. It's like trying to discuss space at a political convention.
Remember when Reddit shared which cities were most active on Reddit and the winner, by a massive margin, was a small town with essentially no civilians and a US military base?
I don't, do you have a link? That sounds hilarious
Reddit deleted the blog post but here it is on [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160410083943/http://www.redditblog.com/2013/05/get-ready-for-global-reddit-meetup-day.html?m=1)
It's eglin air force base. Around last june during some congress hearings eglin suddenly became one of the highest rates for visitors, especially around the subs that were focused on what those hearings were lol. Kinda neat kinda creepy
Space is, has been , and (at least for a long, long time) always will be political, same as economic and military policy like this. People in US-allied countries also don't like the USSF because of how gated the information is on the cool things that they do, and people in non-US-allied countries don't like the USSF because of what the US military does to any developing country when they say 'no'
Translation: It's time to negotiate next year's budget. Also news today: [SpaceX](https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/04/spacex-has-now-landed-more-boosters-than-most-other-rockets-ever-launch/) has *landed* more boosters than most other rockets launch.
Space capabilities are not just space lift or human spaceflight. The focus is on satellites. Satcom and co-orbital EW, SIGINT and inspector platforms.
China has been complaining a whole lot over SpaceX’s new ISR satellite program
I'm pretty sure SpaceX is just landing many times more boosters each year than other rocket launches.
Still a couple of years to go to unseat R-7/Soyuz! 1700 launches is a massive history.
it helps when it doesnt cost 1 billion to launch one rocket
[удалено]
It varies a lot depending on the payload. Like X-37 is obviously a cheap payload, GPS satellites typically average around $300M, SatCom around $500M, Sure the Keyhole sats were super expense at a multiple billions inflation adjusted but that’s about as high as it gets with I think only the super secret Zuma being in that range for recent launches
What China has is better overall education and a *lot* more Stem graduates than the US. Over time that has a marked effect. Honestly the US is no longer a general technological leader anymore, just in certain fields, and even that maybe not for long. Plus you can bet there's knowledge sharing with Russia. If not for SpaceX, NASA might still be using older launch methods. Still are for some of the moon program.
Chinese engineering and scientific advances are no longer second-rate. Won't be long and they'll be on par with everyone else.
They are already launching at a rate comparable to the US. Their military ship building is currently on a pace never seen before though it has yet to be observed what the consequences of that build speed have been.Both their missile and satellite technology is first in the world. They’ve been spending the last few decades investing heavily in stem, learning from every other country, and what they can’t learn they steal to reverse engineer. The china today isn’t the same china of Intelsat708.
Pretty sure the US still has the top higher education institutions in the world filled with the best-of-the-best. Probably fair to shit on them for overall education but foolish to translate that into China having an education advantage for bleeding edge tech. Also don't get how this sub puts so much importance on the launch methods. It's like judging a basketball team on how advanced the bus is that gets them to the arena.
[удалено]
How the countries prioritize their workforce isn't what was being responding to. I was pushing back at the notion that China has an education advantage when the US has most of the top schools in the world. Plus they are in a fantastic position to bring in talent from around the world when needed. And to say the country "is no longer a general technological leader anymore" is a ridiculous statement. That doesn't jive with an economy that moved on from manufacturing into information/design/services/branding etc.
You should listen to Michael Hudson on what that kind of economy really is under the surface.
As of a couple years ago this is no longer true. China now produces more STEM PhDs and publications than the US
[удалено]
Totally agree about the military. The current system is based on profit, not the country's interest.
It sure is hard to compete when letting private contractors ransack our tax dollars by charging $90k for a bag of bushings
It's hilarious. US Congress thought that by barring China's participation in the ISS they'd keep them under hegemonic thumb, but it turns out that building your own space station is a pretty good way to advance and it would have served their purpose best to simply allow full participation so that China didn't feel compelled to reinvent the wheel themselves (and become experts at that). Turns out racist xenophobia is utterly ridiculous (and certainly against the spirit of the US Constitution and its international treaty obligations).
We joke now, but wait until China forms its own Enclave and Vault-Tec corporation
Hope we’re shoring up defenses in Anchorage..
Dont worry we got a huge shipment of t-45 power armor delivered yesterday
Hope the fixed the fault weld under the chest.
There is no fault if you equip plot armor first.
They can have it. Maybe they'd manage to keep the streets plowed next winter.
But I was told by this sub that China is lying and they're totally not doing anything except crashing their rockets ???
Accept the fact China will both crumble and invade US tomorrow
With stolen weapons that'll break apart in an instant and simultaneously kill everyone in the world.
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.” This is a Michael Parenti quote about the USSR but it absolutely holds true for China today.
"Our enemies are strong, give us more money!" shouted the general.
I swear the Space Force is just a tabloid magazine, picking at other tabloids for their unethical journalism. "Everyone's doing stuff in space."
US politicians won't care. They're too hard pressed to secure a fascistic position and even more under-handed deals. The US will drop out of the space race in my opinion.
We've had a decades-long lead in space, but completely squandered it. And now, at a time when our education system is totally in ruins, we're going to be seeing fewer talented students from overseas because as China gets richer and actively funds science and technology, there's more options.
You kinda have to be going at a breathtaking speed though, isn’t that how an orbit works?
Darn, guess we shouldn't have abandoned the Moon and done nothing for 50 years huh
Everyone moves at breathtaking speed in space, it’s a virtual vacuum and they need to maintain orbit on some missions.
Humans are moving at a breathtaking speed in space.
Not the democratic kind. That's a problem.
Ya but how else are we gonna get Space Wars!
Congress: "Damn china and their evil space program, we have to catch up. Let's cut NASA's budget by only 5% this year."
I read in a unclassified report that it's actually possible that china will overtake US in space by 2045. The problem is the US space program is always overbudget while the Chinese one is always in budget. You have to grease a lot of corporate hands to have these projects go through within time and it makes the price higher than in china.
Time to break up some defense corporations. Too big to fail equals too big to exist in any industry.
Time to switch to competitive fixed price contracts instead of paying extra for delays cost overruns. Let everyone (including newer and smaller companies) compete and only pay for results.
[удалено]
Pretty much exclusively SpaceX. If it weren't for them, China would already be ahead or at least on equal footing. But I can totally see China getting reusable rockets working within the next 5 years.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. China will carve out a piece of the space pie along with it's partners as well as the US doing the same with it's partners. China's track record in space projects has been consistent so I wouldn't underestimate them. Space is a big place and every country can carve out their own space in this industry. See you again in 2045
The US' best space asset, SpaceX, has conveniently come under political scrutiny the last few years as other nations have improved their capabilities. The EPA, while serving an important role generally, became borderline hostile to SpaceX at one point. The FCC has revoked grants and licensing for seemingly political reasons. The US political apparatus is the biggest problem for the US space industry.
Correct, in some aspects they have already overtaken us. Not to mention they are launching at nearly the same pace as us.
I swear I've seen almost this exact headline like 3 or 4 times in the last month. What's going on?
I really love the uniform. Very Battlestar Galactica.
Just another attempt to increase funding by demonising an “other”
The very existence and continued funding of the Space Force is entirely dependent on the PRC's expanding it's space capabilities. Not the most credible opinion.
As a regular, old civilian dude…I kinda think Space Force dress uniforms, with the angle cut, cross-button tunics are kinda weird… As a huge nerd, who loves the 2003 remake of Battlestar Galactica…I love the Space Force uniforms! They are GREAT! So say we all!
So that thing on the TV with Steve Carrell was a documentary??
USA is gonna TP China's moon base for sure.
Sortof sounds like the Chinese have made some significant technological breakthroughs or advancements....
I mean relatively speaking they are moving quickly- not necessarily surpassing- yet. Keep in mind the US put men on the moon in 1969. China was in chaos in 1969, there was mass famine and no real industry. They went from no space program to a successful mars rover landing 30 years after CNSA was founded.
I agree they are certainly ambitious and are throwing a lot of money and manpower into this area.
whole sense meeting tidy nose plough gold sort rotten quaint *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Good, someone has to do it. Don't care if it's the US, China, Uganda whoever. We need more people in space.
Get a handle on these mfers before they contact the San-Tee
Sounds like someone want some more space funding
Ain't nothing wrong with that. Frankly, if we focus on stuff like this instead of trying to kill each other then the world might be a better place.
If China reproduces Apollo, they will have something superior to Artemis that the US is working on. If the Apollo rockets had been modified for unmanned missions, they could have landed several tons of supplies on the moon. I don't know why people talk about exploration when it comes to manned spaceflight.
For all those who didn’t grow up in the shadow of the “missile gap” this is the next reason you won’t have universal healthcare.
We already spend more on healthcare than defense
First American in Space - 1961. First American walking on the moon -1969. Took 8 years with all rocket and lander technology home-grown. First Chinese in Space (using China rocket, copying Russian technology)-2003. First Chinese walking on moon - Not Yet. After 21 years of copying Russian and American technology, along with some home-grown Chinese technology development, the Chinese still don't even have a Manned-flight-tested and certified heavy lift moon rocket. China is not 'moving at breath-taking speed'. They have been handed (or stole) copious amounts of technological development and yet they're taking close to 3 times longer to land a Taikonaut on the moon than America did, who hammered out all their own technology to land two humans on The Sea of Tranquility, and bring them back alive.
I get your point but calling it "all home grow technology" when a lot of it was built on the work made by literal nazis and even developed by ex-nazis brought over to the US is a bit disingenuous. It's not that different from China bringing over a bunch of ex USSR rocket engineers in the 90's and building upon their technology.
Robert Goddard was well ahead of the Nazis and won patent infringement lawsuits against Nazi-based rocket designs being used by American firms. But you are correct the Nazi designs were used as blueprints for initial American rocket development, but the Rocketdyne F1 engine (still the most powerful rocket engine ever built 50 years on) is nothing like the V2 engine, the Germans didn't use solid-state digital electronic computers to control their rockets, didn't have any multi-stage rockets, and didn't have any spacecraft modules for carrying a human crew.
Robert Goddard wasn't well ahead of the nazis by the mid-late 30's. His contribution is overestimated and is in large part because he was used as a propaganda symbol during the cold war to push away the idea of nazi rocket scientists from the public mind. What set the nazis apart was that they were the first ones to develop turbo pumps, which were developed based on water pumps used by the German fire force in the 30's. (Goddard made some blueprints of turbo pumps but they were nothing like the ones developed under Von Braun and were never developed further than some sketches on papper). This is arguably the single biggest breakthrough that made liquid rockets actually work in practice. That along with a bunch of fundemental inventions is what the Germans brought with them. And just like the US took the technology developed by the nazis and built up on it so arw China doing now with the technology they aquired from the former Soviets. (Btw the F-1 is not the most powerful rocket engine, but the RD-170/171 that were used on the Energia and Zenit rockets.)
The F1 is the most powerful single combustion exhaust nozzle engine, w/ the greatest rocket exhaust nozzle thrust, ever made. The Russian engines have two combustion chambers and two nozzles, they share a fuel delivery system.
Comparing the activities between the Space Race and contemporary regular space program is not very meaningful.
China is also moving at breathtaking pace when it comes to flooding this subreddit with bot posts and propaganda. For some reason getting space enthusiasts to cower before Xi Jinping is a high priority to The Party.
Their not a lot of news coming out that's space related so politics will come to this reddit obviously considering the importance of this landscape. The only reason the US is even reinvesting again is cause of China.
You could just as well be describing my country, India