After recent tests, China appears likely to beat the United States back to the Moon
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
That democracy and freedom part of the US is becoming harder to see each day. Highly recommend Krebs on Security write up on the descent into fascism.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
OMG. SPAM in a CAN spaceflight as Chuck Yeager called it is by far the most expensive and least scientifically productive space endeavor possible on which NASA wastes 50% of its budget every year. When the Chinese eventually put their brand of SPAM on the commercially useless surface of the dead and dusty ball orbiting us, very publicly welcome them to the club we started over 50 years ago and say that it's no longer the 1960s, so we use robots now. Book: The End of Astronauts: Why Robots are the Future of Exploration.
Upvote
-7
(2
/
-9)
You are comparing a kilo of apples with a ton of apples. Humans on the Moon or humans on Mars use way more mass than we allow the robots to have. Allow the people designing the robots to have the same mass budget as you would need for that team of geologist, and see what the robots are capable off.
Surveyor 1 weighted almost the same as just the Lunar Roving Vehicle. Surveyor 1 landing weight was less than 300kg. Apollo 11 landing weight was 4900kg.
Same with Galileo, the same fix could have been achieved with a robot arm. That weights way less than a human and their support equipment.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(4
/
-4)
Actually, now that China has stopped collecting population data (can't have bad news sent to our dictator, who has a nasty habit of shooting the messenger), we don't know for sure, but the best estimates I've seen are that they are about 1.4 billion. And get this, they have more people over 50 years old than under 50. Their demographics chart is an inverted pyramid.
They are rapidly running out of people to consume OR make things---percentage wise.
Both, due to the world's fastest industrialization and urbanization in history, and the One Child policy on top of it.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
I'm not sure how 1.4 billion people fits "running out of people to consume". People over age 50 don't stop buying things. There are certainly some issues from an inverted demographic but too little consumption is not one of them.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
It is a percentage thing, right? If your output is, say, $2T in goods, and your shrinking younger population can consume, say, $200B of that, then you MUST sell $1.8T, or you must idle your factories.
Then there's the "we need 25 million entry level factory workers" in addition to all the other types of jobs that need filling, and you have a smaller and smaller pool of people to do them....
Bottom line, it means a shrinking economy as all that industrial plant starts to idle and/or produce less.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
Yes, a fly around the Moon with a human crew is the best NASA can do in the next couple of years.
— With the likelihood of China putting people on the Moon in 5 years, NASA should move ahead with the systems which exist now.
It is encouraging that more people on Ars are realizing that when China gets people on the Lunar surface that NASA also needs to do the same.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
You said "and your shrinking younger population can consume" as if the older demographic stopped consuming. That's the part of your argument that completely falls apart.
Certainly if the whole population is shrinking, that will reduce consumption, and that's an issue. But China's population in 2023 shrunk by 0.01%, which is to say if they consumed $2T in goods in 2022, it's down to $1.9998T in 2023. Not exactly a disaster.
Now the other part, regarding the number of workers, is completely valid and I don't dispute that at all. Running out of people to make things, sure, that's a concern for them. It's the consumption side where you lost me.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
So tell me, do you think that a guy in his 60s will buy more or less stuff to support his kids and form his household, as compared to a guy in his 30s?
Does your mom and dad go out and buy stuff like they used to?
I'm sure they do "some", but not nearly as much. Exceptions remain, but that's what they are, exceptions.
People in their 50s and 60s invest to form their retirement nest eggs, for the most part.
Now, if you can show me some sort of per capita expenditures by age bracket that contradicts this statement above, I'm glad to revise my opinion on the spending habits of 30-somethings vs 60-somethings.
Does your mom and dad go out and buy stuff like they used to?
I'm sure they do "some", but not nearly as much. Exceptions remain, but that's what they are, exceptions.
People in their 50s and 60s invest to form their retirement nest eggs, for the most part.
Now, if you can show me some sort of per capita expenditures by age bracket that contradicts this statement above, I'm glad to revise my opinion on the spending habits of 30-somethings vs 60-somethings.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
The moon has been explored extensively since 1969 , now everybody is rushing to get back there for what exactly ? I am all for space exploration but the only reason I can think of going back to the moon is to extract helium 3 for nuclear fusion reactors that have not yet shown to be functional . First they should invest in making a fusion reactor that can produce net power gain and keep it running 24/7 for an extended period of time. I see no good reason at this time to go back to the moon , IMHO it's a political move.
Upvote
-5
(1
/
-6)
Ooooh! Ooooh! I can answer this one!
Because the People's Republic of China is the name of the country whilst Chinese Communist Party is the name of the (current) ruling party.
It'd be like saying the Republican Party launched such-and-such a rocket.
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
Ok, so https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-4/consumer-expenditures-vary-by-age.htm
The 25-34 bracket is pretty close to the 65-74 bracket. The highest expenditures are in the 34-64 brackets. People in the 25-34 bracket have a lot of things to spend on, but they don't have the income or the savings.
If we look at China right now:
Their population is dominated by the 30-60 bracket. They have a shortage of people in the 0-30 bracket.
This actually means that the bulk of their population is at the peak ages for spending. More consumption, not less.
Now in fairness, the expenditure data is from the US. However, see https://www.statista.com/topics/10504/senior-consumers-in-china/#topicOverview or https://asia-assist.com/insights/th...nto-the-growing-power-of-an-aging-population/
One of the most surprising trends in China’s silver economy is the rising wealth among the elderly. Decades of rapid economic growth, combined with a culture of saving, have created a significant pool of wealth among older generations. A report by McKinsey found that nearly 25% of China’s savings are held by people over 60. This is a consumer group with significant financial resources, and they are looking to spend.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Nice info!
Just move the entire graph up by 5 years and it should closely match what's there now.
Just move the entire graph up by 5 years and it should closely match what's there now.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Ok, true, so now the bulk of the population is in the 35-65 bracket, which even more closely aligns to peak spending.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Unfortunately, we haven't climbed this metaphorical Mt. Fuji so much as nosed around the foothills a bit.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
They've somewhat made up the gap in chip fabrication and jet engines, but through weird kludges to an extent. I generally agree that the US is probably 10 years or so ahead of China in space technology but that's not a guarantee that we'll get to the moon first, given the moon is doable with 70s tech.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
We are definitely guaranteed to get there first, unless China has beaten us to time travel technology.
They may get there before we go back, though.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
JPL? They had vendors for parts of the Rovers, but they built and integrated them themselves, no different than Orion.
Lots of sciences missions are handled internally.
Seems unlikely they would have -- F9 was built for 1/10 of what they estimated it would be. And F9 was state of the art when it was built.
$300 Million dev is the benchmark now for a rocket of that class, no one has beat it.
Correct, it's a failure of Boeing's engineering culture. Which is a product of Government Monopsonism in the industry, Jack Welch-isms, and how they've taken to Space contracting since the late 1990s crash in demand.
SpaceX in many ways is a return to form, emphasizing the Engineering, to the point of ensuring the leadership has the ability to think like Systems Engineers. Not just as jaded program managers, or financiers.
The market overall is choosing Engineering-led organizations over MBAs for the same reason, particularly if your company builds something.
Markets are also marketplaces of ideas -- you can have clashes where outdated models are beaten by better ones. In fact, you'd hope this IS the case.
I... dont follow as
1. Airlines are Commercial. America has never had a flag carrier (Nat'l airline) yet, has never been less safe than ones who do.
Saftey in that industry is lead by the private sector, it has to be, because the FAA doesn't have the manpower to inspect them constantly. They rely on internal auditors.
And even after Jimmy Carter deregulated the airlines, allowing them to compete for routes and on price, safety improved about 6-fold.
Why would a space line turn out any differently? More than likely, the talent to lead those efforts will be poached from the former.
2. Plenty of public services have been enshittyfied. Users of health services in Canada and the UK know this first hand. And boy do I have stories about USPS... How is publicly owning a thing in any way a reprieve from that trend?
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
This analysis seems to assume it will be smooth sailing for the Long March and continued trouble for Starship. Even though China has chosen a much easier march, pun entirely intended, I'm not so sure. Remember how much trouble SpaceX had getting three cores to play well together for the Falcon-9?
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
"3-cores" would indicate Falcon Heavy, not Falcon 9.
Getting 3 falcon 9's to play nicely together to make a Falcon Heavy would be more accurate.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Obviously the inward interested Trump meant the end of American exceptionalism even if we didn't have to face his cutting of the nose to spite the face. Now less than half (44 %, down from 59 %) of the global population trusts US. And China wins that race too.
https://www.ipsos.com/en/americas-reputation-drops-across-the-world
The mission cost, assuming the infrastructure is in place, was 350 - 450 MUSD in the 1970s, which adjusted for inflation comes out as 3.5 - 4.5 BUSD per mission. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964622000029
Artemis mission cost is estimated to be at least 4.2 BUSD per mission.
https://www.meritalk.com/articles/nasas-artemis-moon-landing-program-facing-cost-problems/
Evidently NASA has learned nothing as it comes to program cost, even if arguably Artemis IV will be twice as capable as Apollo (landing 4 compared to 2 humans).
Been there, done that.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I'd argue costs are irrelevant to Artemis III, and the bigger idea of putting humans on the Moon.
Unless someone finds a cache of gold, spices, or beaver pelts, all such missions will depend solely on the political will of the people in charge.
Unless someone finds a cache of gold, spices, or beaver pelts, all such missions will depend solely on the political will of the people in charge.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Another viewpoint might be that the costs are irrelevant to putting humans on the Moon. Artemis is a jobs program. The more it costs, the longer it lasts, the more it will be successful.
Artemis II was supposed to launch in 2024. It might finally launch in 2026, a full two years late. The only repercussion of that delay has been to keep lots of old space contractors on the payroll. There is no reason to think Artemis III would be any different.
That is why China will probably beat us. We're comparing Apples to Oranges.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
if our current situation persists, India will probably beat us
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Anyone in the Heritage Foundation or Federalist Society is complicit in the destruction of America. They may be perfectly fine with that, though.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
It is baffling to me that so many folks, particularly in the SpaceX threads, seem to earnestly want America to compete in economics, the world of ideas, and presumably defense capability.
And I have no doubt they see and understand the kneecapping of so many of our capabilities. So I have to wonder if you (the SpaceX enthusiasts) consider being militarily strong and exercising that strength, not as a matter of defense or national need, but simply because we can, as a national priority.
It is baffling to me because we already have enemies that almost certainly would warrant exercising of that military capability, yet we appear to be playing footsie with Russia instead.
That isn't strength, and it's nothing that I could muster up a feeling of patriotism for, though I would like to. Does no one have any thoughts about these things? What gives? What could possibly be the reason for turning our backs on things that actually do contribute to "greatness"?
And I have no doubt they see and understand the kneecapping of so many of our capabilities. So I have to wonder if you (the SpaceX enthusiasts) consider being militarily strong and exercising that strength, not as a matter of defense or national need, but simply because we can, as a national priority.
It is baffling to me because we already have enemies that almost certainly would warrant exercising of that military capability, yet we appear to be playing footsie with Russia instead.
That isn't strength, and it's nothing that I could muster up a feeling of patriotism for, though I would like to. Does no one have any thoughts about these things? What gives? What could possibly be the reason for turning our backs on things that actually do contribute to "greatness"?
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Interesting. Looks like China copied lunar mission scheme from latest Soviet design (N1L3M).
I find strange that Chinese did not copied Apollo setup. Two engines on LEM provide better safety margin. I do not remember why Soviets chose this strange setup, but I guess goal was to minimize Lunar module mass, because mass deficit was biggest problem that haunted Soviet Lunar program.
- Dual launch
- 1st launch delivers Lunar module and Tug stage to Lunar orbit.
- 2nd launch launches manned Lunar transfer vehicle to Lunar orbit.
- Docking in Lunar orbit, 2 persons transferred into Lunar module.
- Tug stage decelerate Lunar module almost to Lunar surface but not completely. Detach and crash.
- Lunar module lands using single descent/ascent engine.
I find strange that Chinese did not copied Apollo setup. Two engines on LEM provide better safety margin. I do not remember why Soviets chose this strange setup, but I guess goal was to minimize Lunar module mass, because mass deficit was biggest problem that haunted Soviet Lunar program.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
This is a joke right? You do realize we are on schedule to have a manned mission to mars launch in 2029 right? How is this not considered a much greater feat than making it to the moon?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
What a nice way to commemorate the 6th anniversary of the Mk1 presentation.
Mk1 to orbit!
Mk1 to orbit!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I don’t think we are even on schedule to have a manned lander available by then.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
This is a joke right? You do realize the US won’t be sending anyone to Mars by 2039 right? They don’t have the hardware, the budget, or in reality even a plan. Just platetudes and hand waving. The US isn’t even on schedule to make it to the moon by 2029.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
to follow your logic the obvious ‘joke’ here is that the US already landed a manned mission on Mars in 1982
as it was scheduled by von Braun’s 1969 presentation
https://newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-conte...space_task_group_by_dr._wernher_von_braun.pdf
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)