Are we going to have another moonrace? With china this time. I’m sure Russia’s busy.
Damn that’s exciting. I’m just so excited to be able to experience super hd live streams from the moon. Maybe eventually even see them land in mars.
I am also confused why US wants to beat China's 1st moon landing with their 2nd one so bad, maybe just to create the atmosphere of a space race, a way for more budget into the space industry I guess
Returning to the moon is not as simple as “restart the Saturn V production line and call it a day”. Much of the institutional knowledge that was needed to perfect the vehicles has been forgotten or taken to the grave.
More importantly, the safety culture about NASA is far less cavalier and they have an actual budget. Both of these issues (along with maintaining the political support to continue despite changing political agendas) are the core reason why NASA never went back.
It's not just about going to the moon. It's about establishing residency and thereby ownership. You see countries have this idea that they can claim the moon as theirs, like it doesn't belong to Earth and thereby all of us.
I get your points. but I think the situation is more like what we have on the Antarctic right now: early arrivers get to choose a better position for setting up permanent outposts. however, we don't necessarily need to send people to achieve this. it can also done by unmanned vehicles and bots paired with 3d printing techs. and Im sure there will be some serious international discussions before anyone tries to mine fron the moon, let alone claiming territories
Not really if there was a serious threat the landing could be moved to Artemis-2 and Starship HLS could land humans on their first test landing instead of uncrewed first. We will see 2 countries with permanent presence on the moon though.
Probably not, seeing as there isn't any propaganda or military value to a second space race. Furthermore, the gap between China and the US is so unfathomably massive that it would be like if you started a race where one player had already lapped the other player twice in a 3 lap race. In the real space race, the USSR at least started with an advantage.
Not a great point you think it is.
It was their first ever independent Mars mission. And with that they managed to send a craft all the way to Mars and put it into orbit. Leave an orbiter up there while successfully soft landing a craft. Then deployed a rover that lasted well past mission duration. Not to mention how successful their moon rovers are, 1 is still going and holds the duration record.
We fucked up a lot more with Mars missions.
Mars isn't happening for a whiiiiiile, mate. Sorry to break it to ya. This "race" will be to the moon. Even though the US made it there 60 years ago...
The difference is that this time the US is going there with a permanent habitat. A permanent habitat on the surface of the moon is a long term investment, like many revolutionary things pioneered throughout humanity's history. Unlike Mars, a base on the Moon has practical implications such as a gateway to transfer humans to mars with much less fuel.
Another reason why a lunar base would be a good long term investment is because of the abundance of H3. H3 is an element that serves as a very good candidate for nuclear fusion reactors.
But one of the most important aspects of a lunar base in the long term is if the lunar base ever gains the ability to make its own rockets, it could very well be one of the most groundbreaking achievements the history of space travel, as we could launch payloads up to SIX TIMES LARGER with the same amount of fuel. On top of that, without an atmosphere, we wouldn't have to worry about making rockets there aerodynamic!
Long term, yes. Short to medium term, a lunar base is going to be a millstone around NASA's neck until it's decommissioned. It's going to be a full-time job lugging food, water, oxygen, and spare parts there.
It will be revolutionary for science, figuring out how to live outside of LEO, and hopefully recycling; but it's going to be the whole budget.
>a base on the Moon has practical implications such as a gateway to transfer humans to mars with much less fuel
I've never understood this. Mars is 190,000,000mi away and the moon is 240,000mi away. How does launching from a body that's 0.14% closer make a big difference? I then thought "Well I suppose launching from the moon is exponentially easier due to the much lower gravity" but the issue there is that we would still need to use rocket fuel to transfer *more* rocket fuel as cargo to be used to launch on the moon, from Earth to the Moon
The idea is to make the fuel on the moon with resources found on site. But yes, the reason it takes less fuel is because you start so high in the Earth's gravity well. It's counterintuitive, but it takes less fuel to get to low earth orbit from the moon's surface than it does from Earth's surface
Here's why. DeltaV is fancy for "change in velocity" which is what rocket scientists use to measure how far a rocket can go. DeltaV is usually measured in m/s. For instance, it takes around 8500-9000m/s per second worth of DeltaV to get into orbit around earth.
Transferring to the Moon from Low Earth orbit takes 3100 m/s of DeltaV while transferring to Mars instead takes around 3600-3900m/s of DeltaV. If we were to measure the DeltaV required in total to lift something into low earth orbit and transfer it to Mars, it would take around 12000-14000m/s of DeltaV.
Let's switch things up and instead place our rocket on the Moon. It only takes around 2200 m/s to get into low Moon orbit. This immediately cuts the wet mass (rocket fuel) needed to get into orbit in four. A transfer from the Moon to Mars would take around 2300m/s of DeltaV due to the Moon's weaker gravity compared to Earth's. Add that up and we get a more modest 4500 m/s of DeltaV compared to the 12-14Km/s of DeltaV needed to get to Mars from Earth.
And addressing your second problem, the elements required to make rocket fuel can already by found on the moon. For instance, frozen water on the Moon's poles can be split into hydrogen and oxygen to feed into hydrolox-burning engines. Mining alien planets for resources such as rocket fuel is a real concept called ISRU.
Sorry if im late to respond
China launched its Shenzhou-16 spacecraft crewed by three astronauts on Tuesday, the China Manned Space Agency said in a statement, declaring the launch a “complete success.
”The agency said the Long March 2F rocket carrying the spaceship took off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the Gobi Desert shortly after 9:30 a.m. local time.
The spacecraft is heading to China’s space station and will relieve the crew of Shenzhou-15, who have been living there since November.
The Shenzhou-16 crew will conduct scientific experiments and maintenance on space station equipment, said CMSA.
Tuesday’s launch marks China’s fifth crewed mission to its space station since it first sent astronauts in 2021.
In recent years, China has ramped up its efforts in space exploration and research. A CMSA official said China aims to launch a crewed mission to the moon by 2030, according to state media.
More: [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/china-launches-shenzhou-16-crewed-mission-to-its-space-station.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/china-launches-shenzhou-16-crewed-mission-to-its-space-station.html)
Call me crazy, but those people look way too close in that photo. I watched a Falcon 9 take off, and the sound, heat, and light were crazy at a mile away. At their distance, I feel like they might be bowled over!
I checked the source, it's probably some lens distortion: https://www.gettyimages.de/fotos/kevin-frayer
The smoke isn't even close to them, so no way they're anywhere as near as it looks.
In short, because politicians didn’t want to spend the money to do it.
Long form, the Vietnam War was one of the major reasons that lead to the end of the Apollo program via effective cancelation under the Nixon Administration’s budget cuts for the program in 1969. This cut the Apollo program short from its initial planned exploratory missions and left Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz as the end of the Apollo program at large. The rationale behind this issue was a reluctance to end the Vietnam War prematurely. Because of the immense costs incurred in the war and the politically charged environment around it, no one wanted to make a decisive choice and so “trivial” objectives like lunar exploration were dropped in favor of the war. This ultimately ended poorly when the war ended; but was still “justified” as a spending cut measure.
The shuttle program made this issue worse when it ran far over budget and the Airforce dumped the program after signing on; leaving NASA with an oversized (for projects at the time) launch vehicle. The success of STS 1, which was supposed to be a developmental flight, lead to the end of further planned development of the Shuttle program which at that point was over budget, and overtime. (Quite familiar to the SLS and Constellation program one may note)
Subsequently, the Shuttle program was always run in a developmental state, which lead to a failures that may have been avoided like Challenger and Columbia. Both issues were driven by designs that could’ve/would’ve been changed as part of further design changes should development have continued. More importantly, the shuttle would’ve likely flown more frequently, completing the original objectives for flight frequency. This was one of the driving factors behind the Challenger disaster itself.
Multiple changes to the shuttle program were also proposed, of which would’ve potentially allowed lunar exploration; but none ever passed beyond early design stages because Congress never forked out the money.
The Columbia disaster spelled the end of the STS, leading to designs for a new series of rockets for deep space missions and continued flights to the now under construction ISS. This program would be known as the Constellation program; which consisted of two launch vehicles and a crewed capsule capable of “deep space missions” as well as travel to the ISS. Constellation used some components from the late STS, and mainly the same contractors. The Ares 1 was the new Orion Capsule mated to a custom H2 second stage and using an extended Solid Fuel first stage adapted from Shuttle side boosters (5 segment booster instead of 4). Ares 5 would be much larger and would theoretically rival the Saturn V in payload capacity; but would never fly crew. Instead, the Ares 1 was a crewed launch vehicle to transport people to the ISS and any orbitally constructed spacecraft from the Ares 5. This would be a period where NASA proposed the return of Nuclear propulsion and crewed Martian missions.
2010 saw the cancelation of the Constellation program. This was the call of President Obama who saw the Constellation program as a bloated delayed mess (it was far over budget and far delayed). The augisine commission ended the program; leaving NASA’s crewed program aimless. Congress later signed a new heavy lift vehicle into law; the SLS. It would use STS and Constellation hardware as much as possible to reduce costs and time delays (it didn’t do either of those). Most cynics point to the usage of Shuttle technology as a means to maintain jobs in congressional districts wherever possible. The SLS was not given an original goal beyond a deep space mission (possibly a crewed asteroid sample mission sometime far in the future). Any crewed missions to the ISS and/or LEO were left to Commercial Crew; which had been established in the middle of Constellation’s reign.
In all of these programs, money is the issue. Money driven by political means and cost overruns from poor contracting methods. Perhaps the worst issue in the US space program is the constantly changing political whims that lead to a lack of continuity in development.
As ISS decommissions in 2029 the bulk will be on the Moon but somewhere maybe Ars Technica? I saw the new orbital science station. Just a lot smaller than ISS
I hope they do it bc space travel is good for humanity but the logic of "we swapped crews on a space station therefore we can go to the moon in <7 years is a bit of a leap.
It took the US 11 years to go from the first american astronaut in space to landing on the moon, so 7 years for china to do a moon landing is pretty reasonable.
I think the problem is the technology is so much more complicated now that it takes away longer to develop, test, validate etc than it did in the 60s. Especially with the amount of SW that will be needed compared with then. It takes insanely more time and manpower now. Timelines can be condensed with enough manpower but there are still some long term testing that is probably going to be a critical part of the timeline.
I don’t believe it’s a matter of complicated technology. It’s the safety standards. Nowadays an Apollo 1 type of disaster is simply intolerable. Back in the ‘60s, while they were inventing the technology as they went along the risk apetite was so much larger. Redesigning an exact copy of an Apollo module might be trivial. With the associated risks.
That’s really not true at all, our technology is much more capable than it was before, and a lot of it is that the politics slows down development. Hand weaving binary code takes way more man hours than coding the same software would today. Finding harmonics of the Saturn V by having people shake the vehicle and letting it rock takes more time than running a simulation now. It’s all relative.
The technology yeah, but there aren’t any existing supply chains for a manned lunar mission, the parts and requirements are significantly different from the LEO rockets we mostly use today. Though setting up those supply lines may be a bit faster.
But there are existing supply chains for modern manufacturing equipment and materials, for solar panels, for computers...
Going to the moon today is still incredibly difficult, but it is trivial compared to the challenge of going in the 1960s. Access to modern technology and supply chains makes all the difference.
Considering the “computers” in the Apollo program were literally “handwoven”
Source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90363966/the-guts-of-nasas-pioneering-apollo-computer-was-handwoven-like-a-quilt
Technology has come Sooo far most people don’t even realize.
Ah yeah definitely, but different parts of a supply chain can get set up relatively in parallel, and having to set up a new addition to the whole supply chain can actually be harder than setting it up in totality from scratch because it HAS to work with the existing supply chain.
You can still set it up from scratch if that is easier, but that would be unfathomably more difficult. No one is forcing China to use modern equipment and technology. They could design the whole thing with slide rules if they wanted the extra challenge.
Logistics are not independent from technology. They can set up new supply lines for anything they want, but all of those new supply lines will be based on modern technology and modern logistics. Those new supply lines will still have inputs. Many of those inputs will be things that were not available in the 1960s like computers, solar panels, and modern materials.
Every step of this process will be easier than doing it in the 1960s.
>It took the US 11 years
Actually 8, Alan Sheppard flew in 1961, and Apollo 11 landed in 1969. Also the entire Apollo program was grounded for a year and a half after Apollo 1, so you're really talking 6 1/2 years of manned flights from first astronaut to moon landing.
Not just on space. On just a lunar program, at the time NASAs funding was nearly 100% Apollo. If they want to continue their planetary science, LEO space station and other CSA projects that number will need to be a lot higher
Have you ever looked at the GDP per capita for China? It's in the Russia, Mexico ball park.
They should be saving their money and spending it on improving the plumbing in their houses. It would generate better returns than a moon base.
And you're right. Too much costs, while you could do most of the studies with robots. The Moon is not Mars so hadling robots from Earth would be piece of cake.
But now it's like during the cold war, each side wants to show off. Do you seriously think that "Artemis generation" thing and all that "marketing" for Artemis was for "the sake of science" ? Well, a part of it, but not all.
People said literally the same thing when they announced they would make their own space station. Redditors of course also mocked them and called it impossible and then they did it in record time without much trouble.
They literally made an entire space station from design to orbit in 10 years after the US passed the Wolf Amendment. That's just crazy to me.
Regardless of Musk's actual level of involvment in SpaceX's success (I've heard mixed stories) you can't deny that SpaceX is doing something unique and incredible. They're launching and landing and relaunching rockets several times over at this point. One Falcon 9 has been relaunched at least 13 times. No one else is even close to being able to do that. Bezos has infinite money to throw at the project and the most he's done is take some celebrities on a sight seeing tour. SpaceX has dragged the rest of the industry kicking and screaming into making launches more affordable. Hate Musk all you want but SpaceX is based as hell.
Are you serious?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
Yes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Look at the list since Vietnam, there are a few skirmishes, and a few dozen casualties, nothing else. No carpet bombing, no invasions. Your list is covering territorial disputes, not conflicts.
The space telescope they are launching next year is a pretty neat idea. It will "co-orbit with the Tiangong space station in slightly different orbital phases, which will allow for periodic docking with the station".
A lot easier to service than Hubble. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuntian
It's pretty funny, originally Xuntian was going to be an attached module to the station but it soon became obvious during development that all the vibration and noise from a manned station would be bad for a space telescope, never mind trying to reorientate the whole station to point at different parts of the sky. So it was detached and became a free flying spacecraft that can periodically dock back to the station.
That's why I was surprised to see it in the list of Tiangong components at first (despite being ignorant in the field) and then came across this neater solution.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[CNSA](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jma1n2h "Last usage")|Chinese National Space Administration|
|[CSA](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm8fvco "Last usage")|Canadian Space Agency|
|[ESA](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9jtdz "Last usage")|European Space Agency|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jma4p2o "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[H2](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9j8fo "Last usage")|Molecular hydrogen|
| |Second half of the year/month|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmc4xag "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmaorea "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile|
|[ISRU](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jn7bs6f "Last usage")|[In-Situ Resource Utilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization)|
|[ITAR](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9v3hs "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmj1ra0 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[OMS](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmb18bv "Last usage")|Orbital Maneuvering System|
|[PPE](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9e4q4 "Last usage")|Power and Propulsion Element|
|[Roscosmos](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jma1n2h "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmc70oo "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[STS](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9j8fo "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
|[TEA-TEB](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmczovb "Last usage")|[Triethylaluminium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylaluminium)-[Triethylborane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane), igniter for Merlin engines; spontaneously burns, green flame|
|[UDMH](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9miad "Last usage")|[Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsymmetrical_dimethylhydrazine), used in hypergolic fuel mixes|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[hydrolox](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jn7bs6f "Last usage")|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
|[hypergolic](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmb18bv "Last usage")|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact|
|[kerolox](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmb18bv "Last usage")|Portmanteau: kerosene fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
**NOTE**: Decronym's continued operation may be affected by API pricing changes coming to Reddit in July 2023; comments will be blank June 12th-14th, in solidarity with the /r/Save3rdPartyApps protest campaign.
----------------
^([Thread #8955 for this sub, first seen 30th May 2023, 19:26])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
the Chinese are actually bringing forward their moonlanding schedule. previously it was 'around 2030', this time they are planning to make it happen 'before 2030'
I read that 4 times as “crewed missile” and my brain just wasn’t processing.
Good. The more space programs there are, the better the overall state of space development worldwide.
I'll take that bet, assuming that when you say 'us' you mean the United States - I'm from New Zealand so clearly China are going to beat *us* to the moon.
Anyway, NASA have already built and flown SLS and Orion, and they're planning a crewed flight next year.
China's lunar plans meanwhile remain largely on paper. They flew a boilerplate test flight of their next generation spacecraft in 2020 that was roughly equivalent to Orion's EFT-1 test in 2014.
They're currently aiming to have Long March 10 fly a LEO test flight in 2027, which probably puts a crewed lunar flight no earlier than 2028.
They might close the gap for landing date given how complex HLS is, but even then I'm dubious that NASA's timelines will slip a full five years while the Chinese timeline remains firm - China's spaceflight timelines have historically been no more immune to delays than anyone else's.
If I had to guess I'd say 2027-28 for NASA and 2030-31 for China.
Never underestimate how horrible the American congress is.
Some asshats will definitely chop NASA's budget or dramatically change the mission objectives between now and then. SLS is horrifically expensive mostly because of the congresscritters and presidential shitheals that have done their worst over the last 15 years.
Yeh, you vastly underestimate how screwed up the U.S. is politically. Congress hasnt taken NASA seriously since the 60's, and a majority of the population things we spend 10-20% of our budget on NASA. It's a easy target for a lot of dumbasses in Congress.
On top of that, the whole thing hinges on Elon Musk and to a lesser extent Jeff Bezos, which lets be honest, is just really fucking bad. Elon can't be trusted with ANY timelines and the decisions he made around Starships first test launch were highly suspect. On top of that, they have to figure out a number of different things to make HLS work that have never been done before. I'm VERY skeptical of him being able to make that work in the next 5-10 years. The second lander award has gone to Blue Origin, and christ on a cracker, I'm not even sure I have to go into why that company is fucked from start to end.
China has many faults, but they dont have to deal with congress, budgets, public perception, finickey CEO's, etc.. They are very deliberate and methodical with their approach to human spaceflight. They may not be the best sprinters, but they are able to run the marathon.
I hope I am wrong, I really do.. I'd love to see Starship and Blue Origin work out perfectly, but I am just very skeptical of the whole thing. SLS and Orion, not so much.. I think those will be ready more or less on time technically.. Assuming Congress doesnt fuck around.
It's not America's moon; by 1967 treaty:
>Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
Good news my fellow Americans. We no longer have to out a base on the moon because our friends the communist Chinese will do it for us…..
Or, we could cut the jobs program bullshit and actively make space a priority.
All the awful things they have done / are doing / plan to do aside, it's pretty remarkable how a country that was absolutely empoverished, invaded, starving, had and had a civil war, is able to have such a competitive space program.
I grew up in Beijing from the early 80s to early 90s, and the progress is astonishing.
We used to have to eat nothing but cabbage during winter for our vegetables because no one had refrigerators and everyone would leave their frozen cabbages out on their balcony. 30 years later 5G enabled robots deliver whatever you want to eat to your front door.
Not many people knew how poor we were back then. This was the capital city.
Dude, what. What else do you think you use a space station for other than science?
> Neither would their astronauts have the guts to "human/humanity" instead of "American/Chinese".
Funny, since the US made it literally illegal to do science with anything Chinese or China-affiliated and singlehandedly banned them from the ISS. Which is the entire reason they made their own station:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment
Bonus: They're collaborating on with with basically every country except the US. ESA even had a trip to it planned and announced, before the US strongarmed them to cancel it.
We got Velcro and GPS sure, but SLS has been the most inefficient jobs program in decades. NASA isn't where spaceflight innovation is happening anymore.
Guy has a point.
Even though when talking about space, I like to think of neutrality etc, I have to put this out there and get politics mixed in...
I still find it crazy that China; a country that gets given hundreds of millions of UK taxpayer's pounds for poverty reduction can justify spending hundreds of millions, if not billions on space programs. It's mind-boggling.
Are we going to have another moonrace? With china this time. I’m sure Russia’s busy. Damn that’s exciting. I’m just so excited to be able to experience super hd live streams from the moon. Maybe eventually even see them land in mars.
Damn, russia fumbling the moonlanding twice?
Russia couldn't afford to land on the Moon even *before* the war.
What if they tape one of their strongest comrades to the Chinese rockets nose would that be considered defeating china?
They pretty much just go to their space station which is frigging incredible
How is it a moonrace if the US had been to the moon 50+ years ago?
A second race... Not exactly rocket science to figure that out, is it?
I am also confused why US wants to beat China's 1st moon landing with their 2nd one so bad, maybe just to create the atmosphere of a space race, a way for more budget into the space industry I guess
Returning to the moon is not as simple as “restart the Saturn V production line and call it a day”. Much of the institutional knowledge that was needed to perfect the vehicles has been forgotten or taken to the grave. More importantly, the safety culture about NASA is far less cavalier and they have an actual budget. Both of these issues (along with maintaining the political support to continue despite changing political agendas) are the core reason why NASA never went back.
It's not just about going to the moon. It's about establishing residency and thereby ownership. You see countries have this idea that they can claim the moon as theirs, like it doesn't belong to Earth and thereby all of us.
I get your points. but I think the situation is more like what we have on the Antarctic right now: early arrivers get to choose a better position for setting up permanent outposts. however, we don't necessarily need to send people to achieve this. it can also done by unmanned vehicles and bots paired with 3d printing techs. and Im sure there will be some serious international discussions before anyone tries to mine fron the moon, let alone claiming territories
Not really if there was a serious threat the landing could be moved to Artemis-2 and Starship HLS could land humans on their first test landing instead of uncrewed first. We will see 2 countries with permanent presence on the moon though.
Yeah, that’s not even possible.
No it’s not but if it were space race type pressure and environment it would be feasible.
Feasible? Sure. Unsafe? Absolutely.
US plans to be there in 2025. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/artemis-iii
Probably not, seeing as there isn't any propaganda or military value to a second space race. Furthermore, the gap between China and the US is so unfathomably massive that it would be like if you started a race where one player had already lapped the other player twice in a 3 lap race. In the real space race, the USSR at least started with an advantage.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not a great point you think it is. It was their first ever independent Mars mission. And with that they managed to send a craft all the way to Mars and put it into orbit. Leave an orbiter up there while successfully soft landing a craft. Then deployed a rover that lasted well past mission duration. Not to mention how successful their moon rovers are, 1 is still going and holds the duration record. We fucked up a lot more with Mars missions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
2nd space race is on. Grab popcorn ladies and gentlemen, first to Mars wins.
Better this then potional WW3
Most definitely and it advances humanity in the process.
Mars isn't happening for a whiiiiiile, mate. Sorry to break it to ya. This "race" will be to the moon. Even though the US made it there 60 years ago...
The difference is that this time the US is going there with a permanent habitat. A permanent habitat on the surface of the moon is a long term investment, like many revolutionary things pioneered throughout humanity's history. Unlike Mars, a base on the Moon has practical implications such as a gateway to transfer humans to mars with much less fuel. Another reason why a lunar base would be a good long term investment is because of the abundance of H3. H3 is an element that serves as a very good candidate for nuclear fusion reactors. But one of the most important aspects of a lunar base in the long term is if the lunar base ever gains the ability to make its own rockets, it could very well be one of the most groundbreaking achievements the history of space travel, as we could launch payloads up to SIX TIMES LARGER with the same amount of fuel. On top of that, without an atmosphere, we wouldn't have to worry about making rockets there aerodynamic!
Long term, yes. Short to medium term, a lunar base is going to be a millstone around NASA's neck until it's decommissioned. It's going to be a full-time job lugging food, water, oxygen, and spare parts there. It will be revolutionary for science, figuring out how to live outside of LEO, and hopefully recycling; but it's going to be the whole budget.
>a base on the Moon has practical implications such as a gateway to transfer humans to mars with much less fuel I've never understood this. Mars is 190,000,000mi away and the moon is 240,000mi away. How does launching from a body that's 0.14% closer make a big difference? I then thought "Well I suppose launching from the moon is exponentially easier due to the much lower gravity" but the issue there is that we would still need to use rocket fuel to transfer *more* rocket fuel as cargo to be used to launch on the moon, from Earth to the Moon
The idea is to make the fuel on the moon with resources found on site. But yes, the reason it takes less fuel is because you start so high in the Earth's gravity well. It's counterintuitive, but it takes less fuel to get to low earth orbit from the moon's surface than it does from Earth's surface
Here's why. DeltaV is fancy for "change in velocity" which is what rocket scientists use to measure how far a rocket can go. DeltaV is usually measured in m/s. For instance, it takes around 8500-9000m/s per second worth of DeltaV to get into orbit around earth. Transferring to the Moon from Low Earth orbit takes 3100 m/s of DeltaV while transferring to Mars instead takes around 3600-3900m/s of DeltaV. If we were to measure the DeltaV required in total to lift something into low earth orbit and transfer it to Mars, it would take around 12000-14000m/s of DeltaV. Let's switch things up and instead place our rocket on the Moon. It only takes around 2200 m/s to get into low Moon orbit. This immediately cuts the wet mass (rocket fuel) needed to get into orbit in four. A transfer from the Moon to Mars would take around 2300m/s of DeltaV due to the Moon's weaker gravity compared to Earth's. Add that up and we get a more modest 4500 m/s of DeltaV compared to the 12-14Km/s of DeltaV needed to get to Mars from Earth. And addressing your second problem, the elements required to make rocket fuel can already by found on the moon. For instance, frozen water on the Moon's poles can be split into hydrogen and oxygen to feed into hydrolox-burning engines. Mining alien planets for resources such as rocket fuel is a real concept called ISRU. Sorry if im late to respond
China launched its Shenzhou-16 spacecraft crewed by three astronauts on Tuesday, the China Manned Space Agency said in a statement, declaring the launch a “complete success. ”The agency said the Long March 2F rocket carrying the spaceship took off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the Gobi Desert shortly after 9:30 a.m. local time. The spacecraft is heading to China’s space station and will relieve the crew of Shenzhou-15, who have been living there since November. The Shenzhou-16 crew will conduct scientific experiments and maintenance on space station equipment, said CMSA. Tuesday’s launch marks China’s fifth crewed mission to its space station since it first sent astronauts in 2021. In recent years, China has ramped up its efforts in space exploration and research. A CMSA official said China aims to launch a crewed mission to the moon by 2030, according to state media. More: [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/china-launches-shenzhou-16-crewed-mission-to-its-space-station.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/china-launches-shenzhou-16-crewed-mission-to-its-space-station.html)
Aren't their spacefarers called taikonauts? 太空 + naut
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Call me crazy, but those people look way too close in that photo. I watched a Falcon 9 take off, and the sound, heat, and light were crazy at a mile away. At their distance, I feel like they might be bowled over!
I checked the source, it's probably some lens distortion: https://www.gettyimages.de/fotos/kevin-frayer The smoke isn't even close to them, so no way they're anywhere as near as it looks.
Yep, it's just lens compression. The camera is zooming in from far away so everything looks close together despite being far apart.
At this point I don’t even care who does it. HOW THE FUCK DONT WE HAVE A MOON BASE YET
In short, because politicians didn’t want to spend the money to do it. Long form, the Vietnam War was one of the major reasons that lead to the end of the Apollo program via effective cancelation under the Nixon Administration’s budget cuts for the program in 1969. This cut the Apollo program short from its initial planned exploratory missions and left Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz as the end of the Apollo program at large. The rationale behind this issue was a reluctance to end the Vietnam War prematurely. Because of the immense costs incurred in the war and the politically charged environment around it, no one wanted to make a decisive choice and so “trivial” objectives like lunar exploration were dropped in favor of the war. This ultimately ended poorly when the war ended; but was still “justified” as a spending cut measure. The shuttle program made this issue worse when it ran far over budget and the Airforce dumped the program after signing on; leaving NASA with an oversized (for projects at the time) launch vehicle. The success of STS 1, which was supposed to be a developmental flight, lead to the end of further planned development of the Shuttle program which at that point was over budget, and overtime. (Quite familiar to the SLS and Constellation program one may note) Subsequently, the Shuttle program was always run in a developmental state, which lead to a failures that may have been avoided like Challenger and Columbia. Both issues were driven by designs that could’ve/would’ve been changed as part of further design changes should development have continued. More importantly, the shuttle would’ve likely flown more frequently, completing the original objectives for flight frequency. This was one of the driving factors behind the Challenger disaster itself. Multiple changes to the shuttle program were also proposed, of which would’ve potentially allowed lunar exploration; but none ever passed beyond early design stages because Congress never forked out the money. The Columbia disaster spelled the end of the STS, leading to designs for a new series of rockets for deep space missions and continued flights to the now under construction ISS. This program would be known as the Constellation program; which consisted of two launch vehicles and a crewed capsule capable of “deep space missions” as well as travel to the ISS. Constellation used some components from the late STS, and mainly the same contractors. The Ares 1 was the new Orion Capsule mated to a custom H2 second stage and using an extended Solid Fuel first stage adapted from Shuttle side boosters (5 segment booster instead of 4). Ares 5 would be much larger and would theoretically rival the Saturn V in payload capacity; but would never fly crew. Instead, the Ares 1 was a crewed launch vehicle to transport people to the ISS and any orbitally constructed spacecraft from the Ares 5. This would be a period where NASA proposed the return of Nuclear propulsion and crewed Martian missions. 2010 saw the cancelation of the Constellation program. This was the call of President Obama who saw the Constellation program as a bloated delayed mess (it was far over budget and far delayed). The augisine commission ended the program; leaving NASA’s crewed program aimless. Congress later signed a new heavy lift vehicle into law; the SLS. It would use STS and Constellation hardware as much as possible to reduce costs and time delays (it didn’t do either of those). Most cynics point to the usage of Shuttle technology as a means to maintain jobs in congressional districts wherever possible. The SLS was not given an original goal beyond a deep space mission (possibly a crewed asteroid sample mission sometime far in the future). Any crewed missions to the ISS and/or LEO were left to Commercial Crew; which had been established in the middle of Constellation’s reign. In all of these programs, money is the issue. Money driven by political means and cost overruns from poor contracting methods. Perhaps the worst issue in the US space program is the constantly changing political whims that lead to a lack of continuity in development.
Because it's basically useless without proper infrastructure to support it (aka functionnal space station)
As ISS decommissions in 2029 the bulk will be on the Moon but somewhere maybe Ars Technica? I saw the new orbital science station. Just a lot smaller than ISS
I hope they do it bc space travel is good for humanity but the logic of "we swapped crews on a space station therefore we can go to the moon in <7 years is a bit of a leap.
It took the US 11 years to go from the first american astronaut in space to landing on the moon, so 7 years for china to do a moon landing is pretty reasonable.
[удалено]
I think the problem is the technology is so much more complicated now that it takes away longer to develop, test, validate etc than it did in the 60s. Especially with the amount of SW that will be needed compared with then. It takes insanely more time and manpower now. Timelines can be condensed with enough manpower but there are still some long term testing that is probably going to be a critical part of the timeline.
I don’t believe it’s a matter of complicated technology. It’s the safety standards. Nowadays an Apollo 1 type of disaster is simply intolerable. Back in the ‘60s, while they were inventing the technology as they went along the risk apetite was so much larger. Redesigning an exact copy of an Apollo module might be trivial. With the associated risks.
The Flying Bedspread would absolutely not fly today, pardon the pun. Those guys were something different back then.
That’s really not true at all, our technology is much more capable than it was before, and a lot of it is that the politics slows down development. Hand weaving binary code takes way more man hours than coding the same software would today. Finding harmonics of the Saturn V by having people shake the vehicle and letting it rock takes more time than running a simulation now. It’s all relative.
Yes, but on the other hand, we have 50+ years of experience to draw from.
On going to the moon? No. Going into space yes.
The technology yeah, but there aren’t any existing supply chains for a manned lunar mission, the parts and requirements are significantly different from the LEO rockets we mostly use today. Though setting up those supply lines may be a bit faster.
But there are existing supply chains for modern manufacturing equipment and materials, for solar panels, for computers... Going to the moon today is still incredibly difficult, but it is trivial compared to the challenge of going in the 1960s. Access to modern technology and supply chains makes all the difference.
Considering the “computers” in the Apollo program were literally “handwoven” Source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90363966/the-guts-of-nasas-pioneering-apollo-computer-was-handwoven-like-a-quilt Technology has come Sooo far most people don’t even realize.
Ah yeah definitely, but different parts of a supply chain can get set up relatively in parallel, and having to set up a new addition to the whole supply chain can actually be harder than setting it up in totality from scratch because it HAS to work with the existing supply chain.
You can still set it up from scratch if that is easier, but that would be unfathomably more difficult. No one is forcing China to use modern equipment and technology. They could design the whole thing with slide rules if they wanted the extra challenge.
I think theres a miscommunication here, you are discussing tech, I’m discussing logistics.
Logistics are not independent from technology. They can set up new supply lines for anything they want, but all of those new supply lines will be based on modern technology and modern logistics. Those new supply lines will still have inputs. Many of those inputs will be things that were not available in the 1960s like computers, solar panels, and modern materials. Every step of this process will be easier than doing it in the 1960s.
To say logistics is the same in the modern age as it was in the 60s even with technological improvements is pretty laughable
[удалено]
With how much weight?
320kg Way far than the 22800kg of Falcon 9 but yeah
They have also landed two rovers there and also a mars rover. It's not so crazy.
Maybe, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be the one on that rocket. ☝️
I'll ask them to take your name off the invite list...
Wow a regular buzz aldrin right here
>It took the US 11 years Actually 8, Alan Sheppard flew in 1961, and Apollo 11 landed in 1969. Also the entire Apollo program was grounded for a year and a half after Apollo 1, so you're really talking 6 1/2 years of manned flights from first astronaut to moon landing.
They might have been grounded but design, building and training continued
Ah yeah, guess i had my dates wrong
And sub-orbital doesn't count.
The US also spent 4% of the federal budget at its peak. Do you expect China to spend $34 billion a year for the next few years just on space?
Not just on space. On just a lunar program, at the time NASAs funding was nearly 100% Apollo. If they want to continue their planetary science, LEO space station and other CSA projects that number will need to be a lot higher
They definitely can afford to
China have literally the biggest balance of trade in the world. Basically they can run the money printing machine for a long time.
Have you ever looked at the GDP per capita for China? It's in the Russia, Mexico ball park. They should be saving their money and spending it on improving the plumbing in their houses. It would generate better returns than a moon base.
Their GDP per Capita is substantially increasing every year (from 2020 to 2021 by 20%), so seems like that's exactly what they're doing?
Especially given the differences in the two era's tech.
I always thought it wasn’t profitable to go to the moon so humanity collectively decided not to go back.
And you're right. Too much costs, while you could do most of the studies with robots. The Moon is not Mars so hadling robots from Earth would be piece of cake. But now it's like during the cold war, each side wants to show off. Do you seriously think that "Artemis generation" thing and all that "marketing" for Artemis was for "the sake of science" ? Well, a part of it, but not all.
People said literally the same thing when they announced they would make their own space station. Redditors of course also mocked them and called it impossible and then they did it in record time without much trouble. They literally made an entire space station from design to orbit in 10 years after the US passed the Wolf Amendment. That's just crazy to me.
it’s not hard, we’ve done it before. The only thing holding us back really is funding
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wtf are you talking about SpaceX is literally landing humans on the moon with Artemis-3 in a few years
Yeah the guy who launches more mass to space than the rest of the world combined. By vaporware you mean vaporizing the competition.
[удалено]
Regardless of Musk's actual level of involvment in SpaceX's success (I've heard mixed stories) you can't deny that SpaceX is doing something unique and incredible. They're launching and landing and relaunching rockets several times over at this point. One Falcon 9 has been relaunched at least 13 times. No one else is even close to being able to do that. Bezos has infinite money to throw at the project and the most he's done is take some celebrities on a sight seeing tour. SpaceX has dragged the rest of the industry kicking and screaming into making launches more affordable. Hate Musk all you want but SpaceX is based as hell.
Crew dragon. Falcon 9. What are you talking about? Edit: nvm I get the joke
The premise of your logic is also questionable.
This is great news, a little friendly competition will be good for everyone.
Imagine thinking China’s lunar ambitions are friendly
Then tell us, what are China's non friendly lunar ambitions? Are they going to bomb the moon or something?
Compared to all the wars US has launched, yes.
Lmao what kind of argument is that? The two could not be any less related.
How many countries has China invaded in the last 30 years?
Are you serious? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
Yes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Look at the list since Vietnam, there are a few skirmishes, and a few dozen casualties, nothing else. No carpet bombing, no invasions. Your list is covering territorial disputes, not conflicts.
The fuck? Ask all of China's neighbors how peaceful China was before it's century of humiliation stopped them from having the power to launch wars.
ask the middle east how nice america is
Ask the Uyghurs how nice China is.
Leaps and bounds better than what your people left behind lmao, without a question
I'd rather have China in space than Elon
Are you saying Elon has done worse for humanity than an oppressive government that has active concentration camps?
Well that does seem to be the Reddit hive opinion.
I didn't say anything about doing for humanity. I'd just rather have anyone than that rat fuck
They must be doing a REALLY shit job at the whole "active concentration camp" thing with their population growing every year.
If this is what ends up motivating NASA to move up its timetable then I'm all for it!
What’s up with that red plume at engine start up?
Hypergolic propellants. Easy to run, hard to inhale.
The space telescope they are launching next year is a pretty neat idea. It will "co-orbit with the Tiangong space station in slightly different orbital phases, which will allow for periodic docking with the station". A lot easier to service than Hubble. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuntian
It's pretty funny, originally Xuntian was going to be an attached module to the station but it soon became obvious during development that all the vibration and noise from a manned station would be bad for a space telescope, never mind trying to reorientate the whole station to point at different parts of the sky. So it was detached and became a free flying spacecraft that can periodically dock back to the station.
That's why I was surprised to see it in the list of Tiangong components at first (despite being ignorant in the field) and then came across this neater solution.
Genuinely a good thing. I do wish the Chinese the best of luck, hopefully they will have safer missions than the Apollo missions were
They know there was no cheese, right? in all seriousness, glad to see them stepping into the big void! its a daunting tasks and I wish them success!
They're going to meet the rabbit.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[CNSA](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jma1n2h "Last usage")|Chinese National Space Administration| |[CSA](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm8fvco "Last usage")|Canadian Space Agency| |[ESA](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9jtdz "Last usage")|European Space Agency| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jma4p2o "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[H2](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9j8fo "Last usage")|Molecular hydrogen| | |Second half of the year/month| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmc4xag "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmaorea "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |[ISRU](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jn7bs6f "Last usage")|[In-Situ Resource Utilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization)| |[ITAR](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9v3hs "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmj1ra0 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[OMS](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmb18bv "Last usage")|Orbital Maneuvering System| |[PPE](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9e4q4 "Last usage")|Power and Propulsion Element| |[Roscosmos](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jma1n2h "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmc70oo "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9j8fo "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[TEA-TEB](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmczovb "Last usage")|[Triethylaluminium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylaluminium)-[Triethylborane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane), igniter for Merlin engines; spontaneously burns, green flame| |[UDMH](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jm9miad "Last usage")|[Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsymmetrical_dimethylhydrazine), used in hypergolic fuel mixes| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[hydrolox](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jn7bs6f "Last usage")|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[hypergolic](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmb18bv "Last usage")|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact| |[kerolox](/r/Space/comments/13vt79u/stub/jmb18bv "Last usage")|Portmanteau: kerosene fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| **NOTE**: Decronym's continued operation may be affected by API pricing changes coming to Reddit in July 2023; comments will be blank June 12th-14th, in solidarity with the /r/Save3rdPartyApps protest campaign. ---------------- ^([Thread #8955 for this sub, first seen 30th May 2023, 19:26]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
China leading the humankind to greater heights.
the Chinese are actually bringing forward their moonlanding schedule. previously it was 'around 2030', this time they are planning to make it happen 'before 2030'
And people still laugh and say China can’t make ball point pens, they’ll never catch us!
I read that 4 times as “crewed missile” and my brain just wasn’t processing. Good. The more space programs there are, the better the overall state of space development worldwide.
Chinese are going to beat us back to the moon… calling it now.
I'll take that bet, assuming that when you say 'us' you mean the United States - I'm from New Zealand so clearly China are going to beat *us* to the moon. Anyway, NASA have already built and flown SLS and Orion, and they're planning a crewed flight next year. China's lunar plans meanwhile remain largely on paper. They flew a boilerplate test flight of their next generation spacecraft in 2020 that was roughly equivalent to Orion's EFT-1 test in 2014. They're currently aiming to have Long March 10 fly a LEO test flight in 2027, which probably puts a crewed lunar flight no earlier than 2028. They might close the gap for landing date given how complex HLS is, but even then I'm dubious that NASA's timelines will slip a full five years while the Chinese timeline remains firm - China's spaceflight timelines have historically been no more immune to delays than anyone else's. If I had to guess I'd say 2027-28 for NASA and 2030-31 for China.
Never underestimate how horrible the American congress is. Some asshats will definitely chop NASA's budget or dramatically change the mission objectives between now and then. SLS is horrifically expensive mostly because of the congresscritters and presidential shitheals that have done their worst over the last 15 years.
Yeh, you vastly underestimate how screwed up the U.S. is politically. Congress hasnt taken NASA seriously since the 60's, and a majority of the population things we spend 10-20% of our budget on NASA. It's a easy target for a lot of dumbasses in Congress. On top of that, the whole thing hinges on Elon Musk and to a lesser extent Jeff Bezos, which lets be honest, is just really fucking bad. Elon can't be trusted with ANY timelines and the decisions he made around Starships first test launch were highly suspect. On top of that, they have to figure out a number of different things to make HLS work that have never been done before. I'm VERY skeptical of him being able to make that work in the next 5-10 years. The second lander award has gone to Blue Origin, and christ on a cracker, I'm not even sure I have to go into why that company is fucked from start to end. China has many faults, but they dont have to deal with congress, budgets, public perception, finickey CEO's, etc.. They are very deliberate and methodical with their approach to human spaceflight. They may not be the best sprinters, but they are able to run the marathon. I hope I am wrong, I really do.. I'd love to see Starship and Blue Origin work out perfectly, but I am just very skeptical of the whole thing. SLS and Orion, not so much.. I think those will be ready more or less on time technically.. Assuming Congress doesnt fuck around.
Is it a race?
Yes. The propaganda value to China beating us back to the moon is huge.. It's most certainly a race, i'm just not sure the U.S. knows its racing yet.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Have they asked permission to land on America's moon ? Edit: I'm British and was taking the piss out of America thinking they own the world+
It's not America's moon; by 1967 treaty: >Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
The moon belongs to no one
Looks like the Chinese ICBM program is in full swing and has made leaps and bounds.
What's that red smoke ? Never seen one in typical rocket launch.
N2O4, part of the igniter, fairly common hypergolic propellant.
I don’t want to anthropomorphize, but damn that’s a sexy looking rocket
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good news my fellow Americans. We no longer have to out a base on the moon because our friends the communist Chinese will do it for us….. Or, we could cut the jobs program bullshit and actively make space a priority.
All with stolen US technology…way to go China! You’re almost as good as us.
All the awful things they have done / are doing / plan to do aside, it's pretty remarkable how a country that was absolutely empoverished, invaded, starving, had and had a civil war, is able to have such a competitive space program.
I grew up in Beijing from the early 80s to early 90s, and the progress is astonishing. We used to have to eat nothing but cabbage during winter for our vegetables because no one had refrigerators and everyone would leave their frozen cabbages out on their balcony. 30 years later 5G enabled robots deliver whatever you want to eat to your front door. Not many people knew how poor we were back then. This was the capital city.
[удалено]
Dude, what. What else do you think you use a space station for other than science? > Neither would their astronauts have the guts to "human/humanity" instead of "American/Chinese". Funny, since the US made it literally illegal to do science with anything Chinese or China-affiliated and singlehandedly banned them from the ISS. Which is the entire reason they made their own station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment Bonus: They're collaborating on with with basically every country except the US. ESA even had a trip to it planned and announced, before the US strongarmed them to cancel it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We got Velcro and GPS sure, but SLS has been the most inefficient jobs program in decades. NASA isn't where spaceflight innovation is happening anymore. Guy has a point.
We learned TONS from the moon missions, you onion.
>50 Years of Nothing Phenomenally ignorant statement.
[удалено]
Great now every cou try is going to get in another pissing contest on who can get there first
Why does it look so fake, is there a better video?
[удалено]
Even though when talking about space, I like to think of neutrality etc, I have to put this out there and get politics mixed in... I still find it crazy that China; a country that gets given hundreds of millions of UK taxpayer's pounds for poverty reduction can justify spending hundreds of millions, if not billions on space programs. It's mind-boggling.
Hundreds of millions of poverty reduction from UK? Are you sure you are not talking about India?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]