51–60 of 76 posts
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46061943 danishSuri1994 said that if others like China and ESA did not also develop reusable rockets they would be priced out of orbit access entirely. I have a question about that, but their comment got killed faster than I could type and submit my question so I'll ask it a level up. Why would not having reusable rockets price someone like China or ESA out of orbit access? I c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Good luck competing with China if they get there first. The French, the English, the Dutch and the Portuguese all got to Asia. Which one was first and which one(s) were last to leave is not the same. The far side of the moon doesn't have a magic "dibs, it's mine" quality. It's big, and it's an extreme environment.
By "there first" I don't mean - whoever sets the foot there. I assumed that was obvious.
Look, I get you don't think you wrote hyperbole, but you did. Getting to a strategic capability based on far side occupancy and assuming that automatically is non competitive and incurs first to file wins outcome.. please. The most likely outcome is an antarctica treaty. The next most likely outcome is broadly speaking comparable capabilities and MAD.
By all means wargame your own vision where China does it solo and nobody else can compete.
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46061943 danishSuri1994 said that if others like China and ESA did not also develop reusable rockets they would be priced out of orbit access entirely. I have a question about that, but their comment got killed faster than I could type and submit my question so I'll ask it a level up. Why would not having reusable rockets price someone like China or ESA out of orbit access? I c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The practical part of space flight is launching satellites, and weapons. Both countries are already doing both. If we're discussing manned missions to the moon or Mars, as an American I'd prefer China spent all the money and the US didn't bother. It'd be cool to see it happen, but no one can identify practical benefits, aside from a political win.
That take is unbelievably shortsighted. A Far Side lunar base is not some cool sci fi brag. It is a massive strategic advantage, and brushing it off misses everything that actually matters. The Far Side is the only place in the Earth Moon system where you can hide military hardware and basically disappear. No optical tracking, no radar, no interception. The Moon itself becomes a giant wall of rock that blocks sensors…
Agree that the general concept is a serious one, but I don't think the numbers work out on your specific implementation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Support_Program#Histor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By "there first" I don't mean - whoever sets the foot there. I assumed that was obvious.
"If a thing which is remote and in the future takes the characteristic of being done first by my adversary then the mostly likely outcome is a marvel universe dystopia endgame where everything we do is fruitless and they win and we lose" Look, I get you don't think you wrote hyperbole, but you did. Getting to a strategic capability based on far side occupancy and assuming that automatically is non competitive and inc…
That's why "just let China have the Moon" doesn't really hold up. These places are only neutral when no one has the power to enforce anything. Once a country can build, maintain, and defend a Far Side installation, the incentives shift. If multiple nations reach that level around the same time, fine, you get something like MAD. But if one gets there years ahead of everyone else, it's not going to look like Antarctica, it's going to look like someone taking the high ground before anyone else can contest it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are missing that the money and research into figuring out how to solve many engineering and scientific challenges related to the missions had tremendous benefit to industry later. As we gain ability to do my re in space more cheaply it will get more important
I'm thinking that Apollo covered 90% of the useful spin-offs from developing tech for manned travel to the moon or Mars. And at least 90% of what's left was either covered by the ISS, or could be covered by a few small LEO space stations. The economic cases for manned moon or Mars programs look really iffy these days. The US has poured tens of $billions down the SLS rat hole, with very little to show for it. And Wien…
It's pretty difficult to predict what spinoffs would come from attempting to put a colony on Mars. I would imagine to succeed we would need to solve a lot of challenges with human biology, genetic engineering, automation, and many novel engineering solutions.
But economics is not the only reason to do things, and I bet you don't expect everything humans do to have a purely economic rational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It feels like China hit an inflection point where they can rapidly progress, catch up, and perhaps surpass the US technologically. The road out of “developing country” took forever but now I see them producing great products in basically every industry. I think this is still a negative for the US though. China’s competitiveness means the Dollar and the US economy aren’t going to be dominant for long, or at least they…
It's hard to see how China can sustain itself economically when the population is predicted to half by the end of the century and 30% the population will be >65 years old by 2050. Hard choices lie ahead.
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46061943 danishSuri1994 said that if others like China and ESA did not also develop reusable rockets they would be priced out of orbit access entirely. I have a question about that, but their comment got killed faster than I could type and submit my question so I'll ask it a level up. Why would not having reusable rockets price someone like China or ESA out of orbit access? I c…
European satellites can and do regularly launch on SpaceX though.
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46061943 danishSuri1994 said that if others like China and ESA did not also develop reusable rockets they would be priced out of orbit access entirely. I have a question about that, but their comment got killed faster than I could type and submit my question so I'll ask it a level up. Why would not having reusable rockets price someone like China or ESA out of orbit access? I c…
But space flight is a strategic competency for states so China, the EU, and even eventually Russia, will all develop reusable rockets. I suspect that launch capacity will far exceed demand and that none will make profits for a long time.
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46061943 danishSuri1994 said that if others like China and ESA did not also develop reusable rockets they would be priced out of orbit access entirely. I have a question about that, but their comment got killed faster than I could type and submit my question so I'll ask it a level up. Why would not having reusable rockets price someone like China or ESA out of orbit access? I c…
The Wolf Amendment prevents Chinese satellites from launching on American rockets, so they don't have access to SpaceX prices. (which start at $325K) European satellites can and do regularly launch on SpaceX though.
For now, that is. Until someone from Europe says something mean about the Bully in Chief, or threatens to side with the victim of an aggressive war… The EU can’t trust the USA anymore, so it’s high time to invest in sovereign orbit access.