Chinese Space Program (CNSA) & Ch. commercial launch and discussion

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

1 hour ago, DDE said:

This raises the question of what comes first: the boogieman or the scaremonger

This frustrates the 'water' out of me.  I welcome competition - nothing else quite spurs inventiveness..

The boogieman will be reporting about the lunar building success to inspire.
The scaremonger will be reporting the same to scare.

As a result, everyone will be sure that a lunar city exists, but nobody will know for sure.

And only the lunar dwarves will be staring at the strange dusted things of metal came long ago from the blue disk in the sky for unknown purpose, between reading the Beresheet library.

I would more worry about the minefields which can be installed long before the mining.

Edited May 26, 2021 by kerbiloid

[Serenity]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I welcome competition - nothing else quite spurs inventiveness... But I hate this idea that competitors are enemies.  Totally unnecessary. 

Ummm i am sorry but that statement is not really accurate, competition brings the best and most productive outcomes between enemies not friends...because then it would be called teamwork,

the motivation to help a friend is way lower than the one  to overcome/survive an enemy, survival instinct is a powerhouse.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Serenity

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

17 minutes ago, Serenity said:

Ummm i am sorry but that statement is not really accurate, competition brings the best and most productive outcomes between enemies not friends...because then it would be called teamwork,

the motivation to help a friend is way lower than the one  to overcome/survive an enemy, survival instinct is a powerhouse.

There are certainly a lot of layers to this particular onion.

(I live in a place where if you wear the wrong hue of blue during the interminable RoundBall Season you get heckled, so I get it).

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Problem is, all they will find is cheese. 

 

China's odd secretiveness can be used against them as well - for purely selfish reasons.  Their choices are resulting in becoming a bogeyman of their own creation that Americans can use to scare themselves into action.  (Remember - Congress does not get the best and brightest, just the popular) 

A dumb guy with a knee jerk reaction is at least predictable. We got to the moon as much because we wanted to beat the Rooskies as for any scientific purpose. 

I'm don't see how that qualifies as "against them". China isn't trying to beat anyone, they want to succeed, whether first or second. They are also not trying to prevent people from getting to the Moon either.

If anything, various American government organizations using China as a boogieman to get funding is a good thing. Better to have trillions of dollars being used on a lunar lander and other civilian projects than on cruise missiles and guided bombs. And if the US chooses to build both, that will hurt the American economy (with a similar dynamic to what happened in the USSR as a result of SDI, albeit with not such a dramatic effect). Or rather than the "economy" (billionaires will be just fine) the *average* American will suffer (or at least not see much progress and be stuck in a relatively low standard of living), which might help turn opinion against say, wasting not only money but also lives in a war against China in the future.

I don't think their secretiveness is too odd. CNSA shares a number of facilities with the PLA (all launch sites are actually controlled by the PLA, and CNSA has to get permission from the PLA to launch, as do Chinese commercial space companies, which by all accounts is a bureaucratic nightmare every time) and rocket and space technology is very much intertwined with national defence, so as part of the general paranoia surrounding enemy spy agencies that communist/socialist countries have, it isn't too surprising, and considering the CIA once used an ESM sensor disguised as a tree stump to get intelligence on the Tu-160, it isn't too unreasonable either (from a pure security point of view). There's also their wish to prevent as much unnecessary embarrassment as possible.

That said, even if it is reasonable I myself don't agree with it. But not so as to make a naive demand that China be transparent on space, but rather as part of the long list of things I dislike about the Chinese government.

[DDE]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And only the lunar dwarves will be staring at the strange dusted things of metal came long ago from the blue disk in the sky for unknown purpose, between reading the Beresheet library.

So that's why Khuzdûl is similar to Hebrew.

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If anything, various American government organizations using China as a boogieman to get funding is a good thing. Better to have trillions of dollars being used on a lunar lander and other civilian projects than on cruise missiles and guided bombs. And if the US chooses to build both, that will hurt the American economy (with a similar dynamic to what happened in the USSR as a result of SDI, albeit with not such a dramatic effect).

One could remind that the only purpose of that useless piece of sky slag called Moon is the hypothetical presence of the platinoids and lantanoids ("rare-earth metals") at the asteroid impacts sites on the Moon, staying at surface because Moon is geologically dead long ago, and due to absence of atmo- and hydrosphere (so, no erosion).

As irl lantanoids are scattered across the whole Earth with no rich deposits, and afair 95% of their world production is China's, so in case if this tale of lunar treasures appeared to be truth, the question of the Moon lantanoid ownership is a question of everlasting Chinese monopoly on their total production for centuries.
As the lantanoids are used everywhere, from electronics to colors for painting, the Second Lunar Race appears to be much more dramatic than the First one (which one was just a tournament of vanity).

It probably will be postponed till 2050s, until the fusion reactors working on lunar D and 3He, required for the mining.
Until that smart people will be making money on the budget funds redistribution.

That's why there are mines and there are mines, and I'm not fully joking.
Just recall the Horizon Project of late 1950s. It started from the engineering tractors, minefields, and infantry with blasters, read it,
It just was published a century earlier its real relevance.

P.S.
Btw how will be in English "lunar marines"? "Moonines"? "Moonshines"? "Lunines"?

(finished editing)

Edited May 27, 2021 by kerbiloid

[SOXBLOX]

14 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If anything, various American government organizations using China as a boogieman to get funding is a good thing. Better to have trillions of dollars being used on a lunar lander and other civilian projects than on cruise missiles and guided bombs. And if the US chooses to build both, that will hurt the American economy (with a similar dynamic to what happened in the USSR as a result of SDI, albeit with not such a dramatic effect). Or rather than the "economy" (billionaires will be just fine) the *average* American will suffer (or at least not see much progress and be stuck in a relatively low standard of living), which might help turn opinion against say, wasting not only money but also lives in a war against China in the future.

Spoiler

You could very easily make an argument that the US spending trillions on weapons fosters peace. Nobody goes to war if they're gonna be curbstomped. And anyways, most of our federal budget goes to health and human services. Space and the military are pretty insignificant.

 

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

As irl lantanoids are scattered across the whole Earth with no rich deposits, and afair 95% of their world production is China's, so in case if this tale of lunar treasures appeared to be truth, the question of the Moon lantanoid ownership is a question of everlasting Chinese monopoly on their total production for centuries.
As the lantanoids are used everywhere, from electronics to colors for painting, the Second Lunar Race appears to be much more dramatic than the First one (which one was just a tournament of vanity).

That sounds reasonable. And scary. Although, I thought rare earths occurred at roughly the same levels everywhere, and that only slightly higher grade ore plus *ahem* low-cost mining practices made China the sole supplier. I remember there was a mine in California that produced these, but I guess it closed...

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

P.S.
Btw how will be in English "lunar marines"? "Moonines"? "Moonshines"? "Lunines"?

Atomic Rockets suggested "espatier", to be consistent with French-derived military terminology. Personally, I think they'd just be called marines.

[kerbiloid]

13 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Although, I thought rare earths occurred at roughly the same levels everywhere, and that only slightly higher grade ore plus *ahem* low-cost mining practices made China the sole supplier.

Platinoids (from the asteroid cores) are also the big prize, as platinum, osmium, etc. are perfect catalysts which can make mass production of compact engines and reactors much cheaper if get available in greater amounts.
So, nanites, compact chemical reactors, compact engines also depend on the hypothetical lunar platinoids.

Of course, if they actually present there.

But probably, who knows exactly - will keep silence until everyone knows himself.

So, a highly hypothetical, but if it exists a shockingly great prize for any price.

(And every other resource, like ice, helium-3, metals, etc. make sense only if these -oids actually exist in the impact craters, so probably the "seas" and the south pole "ocean".
If they don't present, it's a piece of useless slag. If they do, you need all lunar resources to mine it.)

And after all of that, let's keep in mind that the whole Moon is just Africa-sized small.

Edited May 27, 2021 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I thought the plan was to murder the innocent creatures living in the depths until the great Cthulu arises 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02242-y

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1T00EK

... found monstrous barrel-shaped fossil of wholly unknown nature; probably vegetable unless overgrown specimen of unknown marine radiata.  Tissue evidently preserved by mineral salts. 

https://lovecraftianscience.wordpress.com/page/2/

Of course this may be the true reason for the US and China to race each other to the best mineral spots 'out there' 

[Hannu2]

18 hours ago, Serenity said:

Ummm i am sorry but that statement is not really accurate, competition brings the best and most productive outcomes between enemies not friends...because then it would be called teamwork,

the motivation to help a friend is way lower than the one  to overcome/survive an enemy, survival instinct is a powerhouse.

I think honest competition with respect to each other and rules (or good manners if there are not common rules, like in space investigation) is the best. If competitors feels each other enemies they use most resources to defenses and attacking instead of straightforward science and technology. For example nations use several orders of magnitude more money for their armies than for science. Military research produces sometimes usable things but most of the money goes to futile bureaucracy, practicing and display of power to enemies.

 

[SunlitZelkova]

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

One could remind that the only purpose of that useless piece of sky slag called Moon is the hypothetical presence of the platinoids and lantanoids ("rare-earth metals") at the asteroid impacts sites on the Moon, staying at surface because Moon is geologically dead long ago, and due to absence of atmo- and hydrosphere (so, no erosion).

As irl lantanoids are scattered across the whole Earth with no rich deposits, and afair 95% of their world production is China's, so in case if this tale of lunar treasures appeared to be truth, the question of the Moon lantanoid ownership is a question of everlasting Chinese monopoly on their total production for centuries.
As the lantanoids are used everywhere, from electronics to colors for painting, the Second Lunar Race appears to be much more dramatic than the First one (which one was just a tournament of vanity).

It probably will be postponed till 2050s, until the fusion reactors working on lunar D and 3He, required for the mining.
Until that smart people will be making money on the budget funds redistribution.

That's why there are mines and there are mines, and I'm not fully joking.
Just recall the Horizon Project of late 1950s. It started from the engineering tractors, minefields, and infantry with blasters, read it,
It just was published a century earlier its real relevance.

P.S.
Btw how will be in English "lunar marines"? "Moonines"? "Moonshines"? "Lunines"?

(finished editing)

The story I use as history for my KSP save has "Lunar Infantry Battalions". The terminology is intended to be similar to how there is "Infantry", "Airborne Infantry", and now (late 70s/early 80s in the story) "Lunar Infantry".

The US Army is tasked with lunar ground ops because it has experience with rockets and missiles, whereas the Marines have none apart from ATGMs. The Air Force is tasked with space superiority and close "air" support, while the Navy loses their opportunity to have any part in the "final frontier theater of war".

Meanwhile, in the USSR there are "Rocketized Rifle Battalions". I have not checked whether such a name would actually work in Russian or not.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

while the Navy loses their opportunity to have any part in the "final frontier theater of war".

There are seas on the Moon, and they are impact craters, so the asteroid deposits (if they exist) belong to the Navy and Marine.

[DDE]

14 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

I think honest competition with respect to each other and rules (or good manners if there are not common rules, like in space investigation) is the best. If competitors feels each other enemies they use most resources to defenses and attacking instead of straightforward science and technology.

The first option is unlikely to work. One of the big problems of the current geopolitical situation is that the major actors don't expect the other side to even be around in 20-50 years. Why mind your manners towards a side you think is utterly evil - and, better yet, towards a side you think is doomed to go away, to decline and collapse in the foreseeable future anyway?

There have been annual predictions of irreversible collapse of Russia since the mid-2000s, and China since maybe a few years later (this year's talking point is going to be China's population beginning to decline); the US have recently been giving plenty of fodder for similar predictions. This was not the case for the Soviet Union, where, outside of the nuclear first strike lobby, most perceived it as the status quo, discouraging the burning of bridges.

Why co-exist when you think total victory is within grasp?

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

And meanwhile someone smart _NK comes and turns the whole Moon into a no-fly zone with anti-hovercraft mines, lol.

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by kerbiloid

[Hannu2]

30 minutes ago, DDE said:

The first option is unlikely to work. One of the big problems of the current geopolitical situation is that the major actors don't expect the other side to even be around in 20-50 years. Why mind your manners towards a side you think is utterly evil - and, better yet, towards a side you think is doomed to go away, to decline and collapse in the foreseeable future anyway?

I agree that honest competition is not very realistic option for states. But I hope that there is a little bit respect towards common effort to expand in space. Otherwise we get few military bases on Moon but no mining or significant science.

 

30 minutes ago, DDE said:

There have been annual predictions of irreversible collapse of Russia since the mid-2000s, and China since maybe a few years later (this year's talking point is going to be China's population beginning to decline); the US have recently been giving plenty of fodder for similar predictions. This was not the case for the Soviet Union, where, outside of the nuclear first strike lobby, most perceived it as the status quo, discouraging the burning of bridges.

Why co-exist when you think total victory is within grasp?

I have heard those too. But I am quite sure that they are click bite topics and/or propaganda against those countries but government members do not really be stupid enough to believe that other superpowers disappear suddenly. There may be revolutions or other crisis in every country (also in western democracies) but usually they do not destroy states but just change leaders and redistribute property.

 

[kerbiloid]

Just for scale.

Surface area:

Africa 30 mln km2
Moon 37 mln km2 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maria_on_the_Moon

Ocean of Storms = 4 mln km2  = Algeria + Lybia
Sea of Cold = 2 mln km2 = Congo
Sea of Tranquility = 0.6 mln km2 = Central African Republic
Sea of Serenity = 0.4 mln km2 = Zimbabwe

Recalling the Earth history, not so much room on the Moon.

[SOXBLOX]

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Just for scale.

Surface area:

Africa 30 mln km2
Moon 37 mln km2 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maria_on_the_Moon

Ocean of Storms = 4 mln km2  = Algeria + Lybia
Sea of Cold = 2 mln km2 = Congo
Sea of Tranquility = 0.6 mln km2 = Central African Republic
Sea of Serenity = 0.4 mln km2 = Zimbabwe

Recalling the Earth history, not so much room on the Moon.

Well, then, we can conveniently divide the Moon into the 51st through 67th states, assuming Alaska-sized chunks. Now I wonder how so many stars will fit on the flag... 

Edited May 28, 2021 by SOXBLOX

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Now I wonder how so many stars will fit on the flag... 

Five?

Spoiler

 

[YNM]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

There have been annual predictions of irreversible collapse of Russia since the mid-2000s, and China since maybe a few years later (this year's talking point is going to be China's population beginning to decline); the US have recently been giving plenty of fodder for similar predictions. This was not the case for the Soviet Union, where, outside of the nuclear first strike lobby, most perceived it as the status quo, discouraging the burning of bridges.

Why co-exist when you think total victory is within grasp?

Well, someone used to think in a different way... but idk. This honestly is the thing that, I suppose, only time could tell, and I wish they'd return to that rather than trying to force their end of the stick.

2 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

There may be revolutions or other crisis in every country (also in western democracies) but usually they do not destroy states but just change leaders and redistribute property.

Gov't might go away but the people doesn't. (unless you made them 'disappear' in the first place I suppose.)

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

I have heard those too. But I am quite sure that they are click bite topics and/or propaganda against those countries but government members do not really be stupid enough to believe that other superpowers disappear suddenly.

Suddenly, no. And at some point your own propaganda gets to you, especially when you don't consider yourself a propagandist.

But what most people probably aren't stupid enough to do is propose a strategy of containment as a long-term solution... except that's exactly what we're seeing attempted here, along with, woth regards to Russia, an assertion of already being in decline.

2 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

There may be revolutions or other crisis in every country (also in western democracies) but usually they do not destroy states but just change leaders and redistribute property.

However, in many cases these can lead to a foreign policy U-turn, which is exactly why such upheavals are often viewed through the prism of being supported by this or that foreign power. As to not destroying states... civil wars as well as long-term, top-down change of a country's culture are some of the possible consequences. There's a discussion to be had, surely, but it would veer off into what makes or destroys a country.

The actions of the US are presently shaped by its experience with the Soviet Union, where a... series of events with wildly different interpretations resulted in loss of much of the imperial periphery, destruction of industry, and devastating demographic effects that seemingly made it a political non-entity for well over a decade.

Spoiler

I would suggest avoiding the usual cliche of Yeltsin as an American puppet. As early as 1996 a drunk Boris was asking Bill Clinton "give me Eurasia". 1998 was a landmark year when events in Yugoslavia caused both elite concern and popular discontent with US foreign policy - it just took more time (and a different President) for that concern to turn into action that was widely noticed.

Not only are the 1990s, the "unipolar moment", now percieved as the status quo - hence the term "revisionist powers" - but the fall of the Soviet Union, by what is perceived to be failure to keep up with US brinkmanship, also provides a basis for the US's theory of geopolitical victory. To turn around a popular belligerent Russian slogan referencing 1945, "We can do it again!"

10 minutes ago, YNM said:

Gov't might go away but the people doesn't. (unless you made them 'disappear' in the first place I suppose.)

People follow in the wake of the elites (it's generally known as "fashion") and so it's quite possible to drive cultural change by upending a country's leadership.

A partial upending of a country's leadership is a prerequisite for a coup anyway.

Edited May 28, 2021 by DDE

[kerbiloid]

The native population of  the developed countries is mostly decreasing, so no new lifespace in old sense of the word is required.

This may lead to various unexpected alliances between them, S- and Z- turns instead of just U, so who knows how will it look like by 2050s, on the fusion epoch.

The only thing to stay unchanged is the growing need in hi-tech, miniaturization, and thus, rare materials.
Particularly, in preparing of the nanite technological revolution which requires microscopic and highly effective chips and microreactors.

And as by 2050s the nanites still won't be a thing, so to the appearing questions there will be given pre-nanite epoch answers.

So, someone's monopoly on the rare materials means very much for both monopolist, who can manage the others' development, and its opponents who don't like it.

Btw, India also makes some steps in the lunar direction.

[YNM]

44 minutes ago, DDE said:

People follow in the wake of the elites (it's generally known as "fashion") and so it's quite possible to drive cultural change by upending a country's leadership.

A partial upending of a country's leadership is a prerequisite for a coup anyway.

Well yeah. I was saying in context of what they could possibly achieve and stuff. A large population is still a large population, even if they don't reach the bleeding edge they still carry more potential to change things. And even without production at least it's a market, somewhat (longingly looking at our own trade balance...)

On the complete opposite are the native peoples in "new worlds". Starts off bad but best as I can tell they're helped somewhat these days with the surrounding cultural change.

33 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The native population of  the developed countries is mostly decreasing, so no new lifespace in old sense of the word is required.

What is increasing is the quantity used per capita though. Honestly this is one where we might actually be dooming ourselves.

Edited May 28, 2021 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

47 minutes ago, YNM said:

A large population is still a large population, even if they don't reach the bleeding edge they still carry more potential to change things. And even without production at least it's a market, somewhat (longingly looking at our own trade balance...)

Yeah, 1+ bln in EU, US, RU - it's a lot of talents.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Yeah, 1+ bln in EU, US, RU - it's a lot of talents.

To be fair there'd need to be something that puts them into a common grouping, but that's often the problem.

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, YNM said:

To be fair there'd need to be something that puts them into a common grouping, but that's often the problem.

ISS is.