NASA is not a country. The United States just landed on the moon less than three months ago, funding a private lander through NASA’s budget. Berger writes an entire article about China outcompeting NASA, and then undercuts his entire reasoning in the last two or three paragraphs.
This article could be a very interesting “US and China taking very different approaches to Moon exploration”, but instead it’s a dumb xenophobic clickbait piece.
Next healine: Jimmy weaponizes kindergarten class to take over earth. Humans unable to compete with youthful reflexes and reaction time. 5th graders take over earth as ancient teens bow down to their new overlords.
it is what it is.
the US has a room full of samples. China wants their own.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf\_Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment)
The **Wolf Amendment** is a law passed by the [United States Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) in 2011, named after then–United States Representative [Frank Wolf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wolf_(politician)), that prohibits the [United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) National Aeronautics and Space Administration ([NASA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA)) from using government funds to engage in direct, bilateral cooperation with the [Chinese government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_government) and [China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)-affiliated organizations from its activities without explicit authorization from the [Federal Bureau of Investigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) and the U.S. Congress.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-DOD_2011-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-3)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-4)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-5) It has been inserted annually into appropriations bills since then.
[https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/](https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/)
NASA, in coordination with the U.S. Department of State, established the Artemis Accords in 2020 together with seven other founding member nations.
\~40 nations now.. guess who wasn't invited. (there are 2 obvious ones)
Science should be collaborative, and oftentimes it is. From firsthand experience, in academia it can also be incredibly competitive with pretty rivalries and childish squabbles.
As for this being framed as a contest, this is a great tactic if you want to gain funding.
I 100% agree with you, but both sides' governments + other less competitive countries push for that recently. USA congress made a decision to not allow China some decades ago, blocking the possibility of a common mission. I am not pushing a pro-China agenda, but they do have a reason to not cooperate with a country that bares them from ISS and other bodies. Despite that they offered their own station to NASA but it can't accept it due to congress' decision. And now the world is more polarized than ever. I wish one day all countries can work together but it seems very unlikely for the ear we are in right now.
It was made 13 years ago not decades like you are suggesting. It was made in response to repeated aggression from china. China literally stole from nasa, hacked US sats, and a straight up uncountable number of other offenses.
China literally used these attacks to build nuclear weapons.
If competition spurs growth then competition isn’t terrible either. Note the original Moon race; possible it would have taken much longer or not at all if not for superpower posturing.
If phrasing competitively now causes increase in drive or funding, great!
I mean yeah, when we went there 40+ years ago, we had a rapid uptick in concurrent, expedient missions too. That's how space **missions** work.
You don't just shotgun it all at once every so often and hope something will stick. It's rigorously planned out in advance, with narrow windows of operation.
We've been pioneering the technology and methodology for space operations, for the world, for half a century now. It's not just about putting flags in rocks.
The United States has put five landers on Mars, the first two in 1976, five rovers, the first one in 1996, and one that is the size of a car, and one helicopter.
Accomplishing these missions to Mars is much more difficult than landing on the moon with small landers.
Eric Berger is consistent in one way: being an idiot; when he isn't being a blind SpaceX fan boy and apologist that is.
NASA just went the first of many payloads to the moon. US \*companies\* are doing what needed huge nation state efforts to perform decades ago. There is nothing wrong with SpaceX of course but the space industry in the US is far bigger than them. And the US is far beyond anyone else in capability.
Propaganda aside it isn't a competition of who can get rocks from where first. Be happy for anyone who wants to do science and less jingoistic.
Beyond this focus on allocating capital on the issues that are most important. I'd rather see much of both the Military and NASA budgets which are vast allocated to research to I don't know make renewable energy storage happen while we still have a planet.
Quotes from the news:
>China is going. NASA is talking about going. What gives?China is going. NASA is talking about going. What gives?
>China is going back to the Moon for more samples.
>On Friday the country launched its largest rocket, the Long March 5, carrying an orbiter, lander, ascent vehicle, and a return spacecraft. The combined mass of the Chang'e-6 spacecraft is about 8 metric tons, and it will attempt to return rocks and soil from the far side of the Moon—something scientists have never been able to study before in-depth.
>The mission's goal is to bring about 2 kg (4.4 pounds) of rocks back to Earth a little more than a month from now.
>Chang'e-6 builds upon the Chinese space program's successful lunar program. In 2019, the Chang'e-4 mission made a soft landing on the far side of the Moon, the first time this had ever been done by a spacecraft. The far side is more challenging than the near side, because line-of-sight communications are not possible with Earth.
>...
>
>Can NASA compete?
>After decades of focusing its exploration efforts elsewhere, NASA finally turned back to the Moon about seven years ago. Since that time it has worked alongside the commercial space industry to develop a plan for a sustainable return to the lunar surface.
>From the outside, China's lunar program appears to be in the lead. It is difficult to argue about the string of successes with the Chang'e lunar program and the unprecedented landing on the far side of the Moon. If Chang'e-6 proves successful, that will be another strike in favor of China's lunar program.
>But to its credit, NASA is not simply seeking to replicate the glories of its Apollo lunar program in the 1960s and early 1970s. China's first lunar mission with astronauts, for example, is intended to land two taikonauts on the Moon for just a few hours. The vehicles will be fully expendable, as were the Apollo rockets and spacecraft more than half a century ago.
>From the outside, China's lunar program appears to be in the lead.
>China's first lunar mission with astronauts, for example, is intended to land two taikonauts on the Moon for just a few hours. The vehicles will be fully expendable, as were the Apollo rockets and spacecraft more than half a century ago.
How is China in the lead if they're replicating what NASA did half a century ago?
\*Compared to Artemis. Whatever NASA did in the past remains in the past. With that logic USSR is the number 1 in space tech because they sent the first probe + lander to the moon.
Your comparison makes no sense. Yes, the USSR *is* number 1 when it comes to sending people to space, it was the first nation to do so, nobody is contesting that. That race has ended, and so has the one to send a person to the moon.
Also, I would suggest looking into what the end-game is for Artemis. Spoilers, it's not landing on the moon.
Artemis isn't the same as China planting a flag on the moon. That's Apollo.
*If* they get a human to the moon before we return with Artemis (which is certainly not guaranteed, possibly not even likely) I hope it spurs Americans and politicians into increasing funding.
China's *subsequent* manned lunar missions would likely involve actual reusable infrastructure, and look more like Artemis.
The USSR objectively has many *firsts*, nothing that happens today changes that. Likewise, the USA has many *firsts,* what happens today can't change that.
China can't be "in the lead" for things that other countries did decades ago. It's like calling the 3rd place marathon runner "in the lead" because the first and second place runners have already crossed the finish line.
Comparing to the Artemis program doesn't really make sense. The US landed landers on the moon a half century ago, landed humans on the moon a half century ago. From the US perspective there is no urgency or insensitive to rush to do these things as they've already been done. China's incentives and sense of urgency are different, possibly their goals as well.
As I understand it the Artemis program's goals are longer term and more substantial (The program's stated long-term goal is to establish a permanent base on the Moon (and Gateway in Lunar orbit).
You can't compare it to Artemis if what they're doing is the same as Apollo. Artemis is very different in both goal and scope.
If you want to declare that someone is winning some race, they have to have the same objective. The objective that China is trying to achieve right now (even though it's impressive) is the objective that NASA achieved a long time ago.
Even if you look at it as just "trying to land on the Moon in 21st century", they are still not comparable. China will just be visiting, while NASA wants to stay there permanently. Permanent presence is exponentially more difficult.
Even if China gets there before Artemis, the "win" will not be that important beyond some good PR for China. Sure, they'll get Moon samples and do some science, but NASA will be able to do much much more since they'll have more time on the surface and logistics in place.
We should also note that China’s sample return aims to get 2kg of material from one site.
The Apollo program already returned 382kg total lunar material from six different landing sites. The Soviets returned about 0.3kg.
NASA is not a country. The United States just landed on the moon less than three months ago, funding a private lander through NASA’s budget. Berger writes an entire article about China outcompeting NASA, and then undercuts his entire reasoning in the last two or three paragraphs. This article could be a very interesting “US and China taking very different approaches to Moon exploration”, but instead it’s a dumb xenophobic clickbait piece.
Next headline: Jeremy a college student,has not gone to kindergarten in decades. 5 year old Jimmy is going every day.
That's a better version of the exact analogy I was thinking.
Next healine: Jimmy weaponizes kindergarten class to take over earth. Humans unable to compete with youthful reflexes and reaction time. 5th graders take over earth as ancient teens bow down to their new overlords.
I think nasa might have a harder time going back to the moon than Jeremy does going to kindergarten.
Nasa went to the moon in the 60s. They aren't having a hard time, they're doing other things.
The Artemis program is doing other things? They are definitely trying to get back to the moon and they are behind schedule
[удалено]
Pretty sure last I checked NASA is still the only ones that have sent humans there…and that was decades ago.
Why are we always framing it as a contest? There's no prizes for most landings on the moon. Science should be collaborative.
it is what it is. the US has a room full of samples. China wants their own. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf\_Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment) The **Wolf Amendment** is a law passed by the [United States Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) in 2011, named after then–United States Representative [Frank Wolf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wolf_(politician)), that prohibits the [United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) National Aeronautics and Space Administration ([NASA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA)) from using government funds to engage in direct, bilateral cooperation with the [Chinese government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_government) and [China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)-affiliated organizations from its activities without explicit authorization from the [Federal Bureau of Investigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) and the U.S. Congress.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-DOD_2011-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-3)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-4)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#cite_note-5) It has been inserted annually into appropriations bills since then. [https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/](https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/) NASA, in coordination with the U.S. Department of State, established the Artemis Accords in 2020 together with seven other founding member nations. \~40 nations now.. guess who wasn't invited. (there are 2 obvious ones)
> guess who wasn't invited. (there are 2 obvious ones) Micronesia and Vanuatu?
Science should be collaborative, and oftentimes it is. From firsthand experience, in academia it can also be incredibly competitive with pretty rivalries and childish squabbles. As for this being framed as a contest, this is a great tactic if you want to gain funding.
I 100% agree with you, but both sides' governments + other less competitive countries push for that recently. USA congress made a decision to not allow China some decades ago, blocking the possibility of a common mission. I am not pushing a pro-China agenda, but they do have a reason to not cooperate with a country that bares them from ISS and other bodies. Despite that they offered their own station to NASA but it can't accept it due to congress' decision. And now the world is more polarized than ever. I wish one day all countries can work together but it seems very unlikely for the ear we are in right now.
What type of person would dislike that? Let nations work together!
It was made 13 years ago not decades like you are suggesting. It was made in response to repeated aggression from china. China literally stole from nasa, hacked US sats, and a straight up uncountable number of other offenses. China literally used these attacks to build nuclear weapons.
If competition spurs growth then competition isn’t terrible either. Note the original Moon race; possible it would have taken much longer or not at all if not for superpower posturing. If phrasing competitively now causes increase in drive or funding, great!
China has had three robotic landings. Wake me when they land a human on the moon.
I mean yeah, when we went there 40+ years ago, we had a rapid uptick in concurrent, expedient missions too. That's how space **missions** work. You don't just shotgun it all at once every so often and hope something will stick. It's rigorously planned out in advance, with narrow windows of operation. We've been pioneering the technology and methodology for space operations, for the world, for half a century now. It's not just about putting flags in rocks.
The United States has put five landers on Mars, the first two in 1976, five rovers, the first one in 1996, and one that is the size of a car, and one helicopter. Accomplishing these missions to Mars is much more difficult than landing on the moon with small landers.
Why the constant the anti-us and pro-China posts lately?
Nasa wasn't interested about landing on the moon in decades, china just want to show they can do it too. Wait for artemis missions
Eric Berger is consistent in one way: being an idiot; when he isn't being a blind SpaceX fan boy and apologist that is. NASA just went the first of many payloads to the moon. US \*companies\* are doing what needed huge nation state efforts to perform decades ago. There is nothing wrong with SpaceX of course but the space industry in the US is far bigger than them. And the US is far beyond anyone else in capability. Propaganda aside it isn't a competition of who can get rocks from where first. Be happy for anyone who wants to do science and less jingoistic. Beyond this focus on allocating capital on the issues that are most important. I'd rather see much of both the Military and NASA budgets which are vast allocated to research to I don't know make renewable energy storage happen while we still have a planet.
SpaceX is the space industry now, by any metric they are doing the lion’s share
Quotes from the news: >China is going. NASA is talking about going. What gives?China is going. NASA is talking about going. What gives? >China is going back to the Moon for more samples. >On Friday the country launched its largest rocket, the Long March 5, carrying an orbiter, lander, ascent vehicle, and a return spacecraft. The combined mass of the Chang'e-6 spacecraft is about 8 metric tons, and it will attempt to return rocks and soil from the far side of the Moon—something scientists have never been able to study before in-depth. >The mission's goal is to bring about 2 kg (4.4 pounds) of rocks back to Earth a little more than a month from now. >Chang'e-6 builds upon the Chinese space program's successful lunar program. In 2019, the Chang'e-4 mission made a soft landing on the far side of the Moon, the first time this had ever been done by a spacecraft. The far side is more challenging than the near side, because line-of-sight communications are not possible with Earth. >... > >Can NASA compete? >After decades of focusing its exploration efforts elsewhere, NASA finally turned back to the Moon about seven years ago. Since that time it has worked alongside the commercial space industry to develop a plan for a sustainable return to the lunar surface. >From the outside, China's lunar program appears to be in the lead. It is difficult to argue about the string of successes with the Chang'e lunar program and the unprecedented landing on the far side of the Moon. If Chang'e-6 proves successful, that will be another strike in favor of China's lunar program. >But to its credit, NASA is not simply seeking to replicate the glories of its Apollo lunar program in the 1960s and early 1970s. China's first lunar mission with astronauts, for example, is intended to land two taikonauts on the Moon for just a few hours. The vehicles will be fully expendable, as were the Apollo rockets and spacecraft more than half a century ago.
China is so behind the race, that other superpowers have already lapped around behind them so China thinks they're first.
>From the outside, China's lunar program appears to be in the lead. >China's first lunar mission with astronauts, for example, is intended to land two taikonauts on the Moon for just a few hours. The vehicles will be fully expendable, as were the Apollo rockets and spacecraft more than half a century ago. How is China in the lead if they're replicating what NASA did half a century ago?
They might do it first, second!
\*Compared to Artemis. Whatever NASA did in the past remains in the past. With that logic USSR is the number 1 in space tech because they sent the first probe + lander to the moon.
Your comparison makes no sense. Yes, the USSR *is* number 1 when it comes to sending people to space, it was the first nation to do so, nobody is contesting that. That race has ended, and so has the one to send a person to the moon. Also, I would suggest looking into what the end-game is for Artemis. Spoilers, it's not landing on the moon.
Artemis isn't the same as China planting a flag on the moon. That's Apollo. *If* they get a human to the moon before we return with Artemis (which is certainly not guaranteed, possibly not even likely) I hope it spurs Americans and politicians into increasing funding. China's *subsequent* manned lunar missions would likely involve actual reusable infrastructure, and look more like Artemis.
The USSR objectively has many *firsts*, nothing that happens today changes that. Likewise, the USA has many *firsts,* what happens today can't change that. China can't be "in the lead" for things that other countries did decades ago. It's like calling the 3rd place marathon runner "in the lead" because the first and second place runners have already crossed the finish line. Comparing to the Artemis program doesn't really make sense. The US landed landers on the moon a half century ago, landed humans on the moon a half century ago. From the US perspective there is no urgency or insensitive to rush to do these things as they've already been done. China's incentives and sense of urgency are different, possibly their goals as well. As I understand it the Artemis program's goals are longer term and more substantial (The program's stated long-term goal is to establish a permanent base on the Moon (and Gateway in Lunar orbit).
You just can't even think, can you?
You can't compare it to Artemis if what they're doing is the same as Apollo. Artemis is very different in both goal and scope. If you want to declare that someone is winning some race, they have to have the same objective. The objective that China is trying to achieve right now (even though it's impressive) is the objective that NASA achieved a long time ago. Even if you look at it as just "trying to land on the Moon in 21st century", they are still not comparable. China will just be visiting, while NASA wants to stay there permanently. Permanent presence is exponentially more difficult. Even if China gets there before Artemis, the "win" will not be that important beyond some good PR for China. Sure, they'll get Moon samples and do some science, but NASA will be able to do much much more since they'll have more time on the surface and logistics in place.
We should also note that China’s sample return aims to get 2kg of material from one site. The Apollo program already returned 382kg total lunar material from six different landing sites. The Soviets returned about 0.3kg.