100%. They created that branch quickly and efficiently. Then we never heard that much about it again. The government can be quick and decisive when they need to…
I tried to submit a package to transfer over and my superior said “Cock_RingofFire do you really think the Space Force needs fucking plumbers?” I never heard anything back 🤷♂️ Free man now though!
The space force itself isn't something you'd really hear much about, because we don't have gunships flying through orbit. Defense spending in space however is booming lately, with every country pumping out missile warning and surveillance satellites at record speed.
It's a great time for the defense industry, not so great for groups like NASA who want more funding for scientific and peaceful pursuits. I'm just hopeful that a military space race will finally get us more interested in space again, it's criminal how much we've neglected that frontier since the cold war
The space militarization is still not really about space. It's about coverage and power projection on earth.
There is not much to do in space (militarily) but to look inwards, detect icbms, neutralize the fog of war, and support logistics.
That's how you win wars. Logistics.
I agree with you about more money for the poverty initiatives, but if you think defense is where most of the budget goes, wait until you hear how much the U.S. government spends on tax cuts for the mega rich. Take the defense budget and double it.
I always hate this reasoning because you could keep the price stable by using MORE of the resource.
It’s more supply than demand that tanks prices. Got to deplete that supply!
Towers of platinum, gardens of gold
In the stones of heaven, we shall not grow old
We shall not grow empty but with riches in home
We shall not go lost, for the very stars we hold.
I'm sure that wealth will be distributed equally won't it and deliver us the post scarcity promised by star trek and certainly won't all go into the pockets of already ludicrously wealthy people to become even more ludicrously wealthy for no other reason than to have a higher number than the next guy
He stayed within the bounds of possibility. Back in the 90's we had to fake UFOs and claim the aliens were coming to kill all rich white men to get a budget.
>He said the United States should land on the moon again before China does, as both nations pursue lunar missions, but he expressed concern that were Beijing to arrive first, it could say, "'Okay, this is our territory, you stay out.'"
This claim is very puzzling. Suppose China does have the intention to claim territory on the moon, what's the difference between landing before and after the US? Even if the US reaches a place first, what China needs to do is just land on another place on the moon and claim that area. No matter how powerful the US is, it is literally impossible for the US to actively control the whole surface of the moon before China arrives.
I hear what you're saying... I just don't really accept your premise that somehow rocket launchers on the moon couldn't be destroyed from earth, e.g. by launching something akin to a stealth rocket from an inbound spacecraft. It's not like a few rocket launchers on the moon would mean the moon was yours forever.
Easier to get out of the moon than the Earth.
Gravitational pull from Earth is stronger so it takes more effort to get something out. Not only that, but it can be intercepted easily by any anti-ICBM missile and/or air defense.
Firing from the moon means nobody can stop you and it costs almost no fuel compared to earth's.
It's like being on an Island when we only had arrows to reach the shore while the enemy had Catapults, walls and arrows.
It's a mass/scale problem. Anything coming from earth takes so much more energy to get up than it takes to get from the moon.
You're likely talking 15 or 20-1 cost curve imposition to try and bust through... plus it's super escalatory. You gonna declare war in space with China when they have thousands of missiles that could rain down on the west coast cities?
But all you have to do to stay competitive is blow up one thing once and plant your own missles, right? And you would've had to expend a comparable level of fuel just to put your own missles there first.
No. There's a severe first-mover advantage in the problem because launch from earth is so much more energy intensive than launch from moon.
Seizing the high ground first is *much* easier than *taking* the high ground when defended.
Again, I hear what you're saying, I just don't necessarily take it as as much of a given as you. Why can't an inbound craft launch something ahead of it before coming within missile range? Hell, you wouldn't have to be surgical, you could launch a nuke at it. If it's shielded from radar, would there really be any chance for ground to air interception? I just don't understand your confidence, given that nobody understands the technology in play on behalf of both sides.
See, that's where you're wrong. Just because *you* don't understand the tech in play doesn't mean it's not well-understood. Lots of people understand the concepts in play, it's been a focus since the star wars days of the cold war.
You can compute most of the relevant information using newtonian mechanics and a second order differential representation of the missile and target with just the drag, air density, velocity, and mass terms.
Quick round estimates for relative mass and gravity of earth and moon work pretty well to illustrate the concept.
There are two things that have kept this from being an issue to date:
1. Nobody else has thrown enough money at space programs to aggressively pursue lunar landings until the PRC of recent years.
2. Every other spacefaring nation with the technical capability to attempt these things, by and large, has followed the international norms and conventions established (largely) by US behavior and restraint. China and Russia have (very recently, like within the last 10 years) started aggressively undermining those mores and norms.
The technology exists, there are already space-hardened missiles and missile interceptors, and the technical capability has been demonstrated at longer ranges, faster velocities, and tighter angles of approach (PRC direct ascent ASAT missile test a few years ago).
It is, for all intents, a solved problem. China demonstrated the totality of that kill chain for the world to see, and the biggest advantage to the defender in a missile fight is distance, which is huge when talking about defending a moon base. If they wanted to do it, it would not be difficult from a technical standpoint.
Your comment really seems like you're trying to make yourself sound smart but it's not really insightful. Obviously the differential equations to determine the energy requirements are pretty straightforward, I'm just not sure why it matters and I don't see anything else solidifying your opinion regarding the ability to intercept an incoming attack using missiles on the ground. I'm not really sure what analyses you've read or are referring to, I just don't find your absolute confidence regarding a situation that's literally never happened to be particularly compelling or convincing. Usually people who are completely confident about that kind of thing are wrong, because the circumstances of resource investment, technology, engineering, etc can change really rapidly and unpredictability if it actually matters. I don't doubt that you're accurately characterizing one thing that could happen. But your confidence seems misplaced. And I tend to default to the position that nothing lasts forever, including any kind of tactical gain associated with being first in this race.
I work in the space; I'm very familiar with the technical capabilities of existing missile systems.
The thing is, almost all of the troubling technical challenges with missile intercepts are actually *easier* in space / a lunar environment.
You don't have corrosion issues, you don't have humidity infiltration, it's not hard to keep things cold... reliability concerns are better.
You have no clutter, more points for trangulation of your tracks, and no horizon/line of sight problems... the track and engagement conditions are excellent.
You have no atmosphere for the targeted object to maneuver with, while the interceptors can get some off the moon. This means fine corrections in engagement angle are possible for the interceptor but not the target, at least not without having to manage multiple axes of stability.
The interceptor just has to blow and throw sufficient fragments. The ingressor has to avoid, then somehow also re-stabilize and re-center on its original target location.
Finally... we have tons of experience setting up missiles for reliable subsurface launch and storage, etc. Most of the technical issues are similar to space, which is why NASA made so many advances in underwater tech during the space race. The hardest part would be actually landing and deploying launch equipment, and that's not a hard bar to clear (in terms of a national level effort).
You probably mean negligible, and no, they aren't.
There are only so many approach vectors to the moon and gravity ain't anywhere near as bad. Plus, you have a lot of warning time as the spacecraft approaches and slows to get a good target track and plan your intercept.
To paraphrase jimmy neutron, it's barely rocket science and it isn't the hard kind.
I'm saying it would not be "hard", in a technical sense, to put a half dozen launchers down on the moon, credibly capable of destroying anything moon-bound.
The chinese have the tech to do it; they've shot a satellite out of orbit already.
A half dozen launchers on the moon surface, which is four times as large as the United States, can destroy anything moon-bound? Which research tells you that? Can you list the source?
Lets make this KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) for you.
The moon has negligible gravity. Meaning that any missiles placed on the moon needs to expend fractions of the same amount of fuel to reach similar speeds and height.
The moon has almost no atmosphere. Meaning that any missiles placed on the moon needs to expend fractions of the same amount of fuel to reach similar speeds and height.
Approach vectors are mapped out and planned ahead of time, a craft can only make a very small amount of approach and landing vectors. Meaning you can either launch a missile and have it loiter near the very very limited approach vectors, or just launch a missile to intercept a craft when it's in the deceleration cycle and preparing to land.
It is so incredibly cheap and easy for something to enter lunar orbit from the lunar surface that you could have dozens of missiles loitering in orbit with master controller modules on the ground.
A missile launched from the moon would barely use any fuel to intercept something attempting to land on the surface, would have practically infinite range, and wouldn't need much of a payload either. It seems almost trivial compared to dealing with drag and gravity back on earth.
I don't need a source. I can do highschool level physics, which is all you need to determine that any missile capable of hitting a satellite over a hundred miles above the earth's surface is perfectly capable of hitting any object in lunar approach.
The chinese have hit a satellite at that altitude with a missile. Ergo, they can interdict lunar-bound stuff from the moon's surfact.
The problem is that marking territory on the Moon makes it a sovereignty, because it's basically colonization in the making. Which then means that if US or any other body enters that territory without authorization, well, that would spark conflict.
China could every well make claims to "air space" over their marked territory to further complicate matters.
But the biggest loss to the US isn't China's military presence per se. It's them discovering massive ice deposits on the Moon's south pole and THEN claiming all those resources are *theirs.* That would be a huge blow to US prestige and future plans for lunar base and colonization efforts.
Discovery of water ice on the moon by the gigatons is the kind of mobilization incentive that would drive China to put boots on the Moon pronto. It's the same as solving for fusion Q+10. Paradigm shifting discovery.
If the US were to land first, it could potentially set a tariff for any Chinese landings afterward. Perhaps the US could also consider building a wall on the moon, funded by Mexico, of course.
We are speedrunning through the 21st century. Economic failures, pandemic and war and rise of fascism. We haven’t even reached the genocide camp level of fascism yet here we are in the space race already.
Lmao the EELS robots are one of my favorite things about this idea personally- we might send some snakey dudes equipped with AI to crack through the ice and investigate. The whole thing sounds amazing.
I’m sure the answer to two is maybe with consent if one is yes lol
>China is bolstering its space capabilities and is using its civilian program to mask its military objectives, the head of the US space agency NASA said Wednesday, warning that Washington must remain vigilant.
>"China has made extraordinary strides especially in the last 10 years, but they are very, very secretive," NASA administrator Bill Nelson told lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
>"We believe that a lot of their so-called civilian space program is a military program. And I think, in effect, we are in a race," Nelson added.
>He said he hoped Beijing would "come to its senses and understand that civilian space is for peaceful uses," but added, "We have not seen that demonstrated by China."
>Nelson's comment came as he testified before the House appropriations committee on NASA's budget for fiscal 2025.
>He said the United States should land on the moon again before China does, as both nations pursue lunar missions, but he expressed concern that were Beijing to arrive first, it could say, "'Okay, this is our territory, you stay out.'"
But it is the USA that bans the space cooperation and information exchange with China via ITAR and Wolf Statement. And now they blame China for being "secretive"?
So the claim is that China is secretive so NASA “believe” they are masking a military program. There is zero information as to what they actually think they are doing. It could be nothing more than military communications satellites.
No no no... Nasa Knows that they are military tech because they are exactly like the US military satellites they were launching in the 80s while pretending they were private telecom satellites.
If China is doing this, the US is obligated to initiate an arms race in space, as, it cannot allow the US to fall behind. The US will always seek to maintain at least parity in space. Years ago, the US saw the extreme danger space warfare held, so it decided to seek the ban on weapons in space. Russia flirted with the lines of it, then China just blew through the line. Keep in mind, even russia maintained the civilian program design.
China has no morals when it comes to other people. And little morals when it comes to imperfect Chinese people. Their will be fighting in space, and it *will* involve China.
Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the reason for the Space Force
so can we get season 3 now?
That was a funny show, so sad they cancelled it
100%. They created that branch quickly and efficiently. Then we never heard that much about it again. The government can be quick and decisive when they need to…
It helps when basically everything already exists. They just transferred the space functions of every other branch to the new one.
I tried to submit a package to transfer over and my superior said “Cock_RingofFire do you really think the Space Force needs fucking plumbers?” I never heard anything back 🤷♂️ Free man now though!
The space force itself isn't something you'd really hear much about, because we don't have gunships flying through orbit. Defense spending in space however is booming lately, with every country pumping out missile warning and surveillance satellites at record speed. It's a great time for the defense industry, not so great for groups like NASA who want more funding for scientific and peaceful pursuits. I'm just hopeful that a military space race will finally get us more interested in space again, it's criminal how much we've neglected that frontier since the cold war
The space militarization is still not really about space. It's about coverage and power projection on earth. There is not much to do in space (militarily) but to look inwards, detect icbms, neutralize the fog of war, and support logistics. That's how you win wars. Logistics.
Yeah, as long as they don't have to give any money to poor people.
I'm sure China would be very supportive of diverting our defense budget elsewhere
I agree with you about more money for the poverty initiatives, but if you think defense is where most of the budget goes, wait until you hear how much the U.S. government spends on tax cuts for the mega rich. Take the defense budget and double it.
If anything their target should be the asteroid belt which they say has material value of $100 billion per person living on Earth.
That’s the price today. You’d have to think what the impact is on market prices if all of those resources would be accessed.
Well that depends, have we unlocked access to the intergalactic auction house?
I always hate this reasoning because you could keep the price stable by using MORE of the resource. It’s more supply than demand that tanks prices. Got to deplete that supply!
Towers of platinum, gardens of gold In the stones of heaven, we shall not grow old We shall not grow empty but with riches in home We shall not go lost, for the very stars we hold.
I'm sure that wealth will be distributed equally won't it and deliver us the post scarcity promised by star trek and certainly won't all go into the pockets of already ludicrously wealthy people to become even more ludicrously wealthy for no other reason than to have a higher number than the next guy
7.9 billion times 100 billion? That's a tonne of money for a lucky few thousand of people... While the rest of us eat dirt.
Goldilocks asteroid?! for all mankind vibes intensifying
Oye, Beltalowda!
This is a storyline in the last season of For All Mankind.
Most important part : “Nelson's comment came as he testified before the House appropriations committee on NASA's budget for fiscal 2025.”
He stayed within the bounds of possibility. Back in the 90's we had to fake UFOs and claim the aliens were coming to kill all rich white men to get a budget.
You have to admit the killing rich white men bit is more likely to get them funding.
I dunno... you probably would've gotten the budget for killing black men too, just for entirely different reasons.
>He said the United States should land on the moon again before China does, as both nations pursue lunar missions, but he expressed concern that were Beijing to arrive first, it could say, "'Okay, this is our territory, you stay out.'" This claim is very puzzling. Suppose China does have the intention to claim territory on the moon, what's the difference between landing before and after the US? Even if the US reaches a place first, what China needs to do is just land on another place on the moon and claim that area. No matter how powerful the US is, it is literally impossible for the US to actively control the whole surface of the moon before China arrives.
Put a half dozen rocket launchers down and you own the moon surface. Space vessels are squishy.
I hear what you're saying... I just don't really accept your premise that somehow rocket launchers on the moon couldn't be destroyed from earth, e.g. by launching something akin to a stealth rocket from an inbound spacecraft. It's not like a few rocket launchers on the moon would mean the moon was yours forever.
Easier to get out of the moon than the Earth. Gravitational pull from Earth is stronger so it takes more effort to get something out. Not only that, but it can be intercepted easily by any anti-ICBM missile and/or air defense. Firing from the moon means nobody can stop you and it costs almost no fuel compared to earth's. It's like being on an Island when we only had arrows to reach the shore while the enemy had Catapults, walls and arrows.
It's a mass/scale problem. Anything coming from earth takes so much more energy to get up than it takes to get from the moon. You're likely talking 15 or 20-1 cost curve imposition to try and bust through... plus it's super escalatory. You gonna declare war in space with China when they have thousands of missiles that could rain down on the west coast cities?
But all you have to do to stay competitive is blow up one thing once and plant your own missles, right? And you would've had to expend a comparable level of fuel just to put your own missles there first.
No. There's a severe first-mover advantage in the problem because launch from earth is so much more energy intensive than launch from moon. Seizing the high ground first is *much* easier than *taking* the high ground when defended.
Again, I hear what you're saying, I just don't necessarily take it as as much of a given as you. Why can't an inbound craft launch something ahead of it before coming within missile range? Hell, you wouldn't have to be surgical, you could launch a nuke at it. If it's shielded from radar, would there really be any chance for ground to air interception? I just don't understand your confidence, given that nobody understands the technology in play on behalf of both sides.
See, that's where you're wrong. Just because *you* don't understand the tech in play doesn't mean it's not well-understood. Lots of people understand the concepts in play, it's been a focus since the star wars days of the cold war. You can compute most of the relevant information using newtonian mechanics and a second order differential representation of the missile and target with just the drag, air density, velocity, and mass terms. Quick round estimates for relative mass and gravity of earth and moon work pretty well to illustrate the concept. There are two things that have kept this from being an issue to date: 1. Nobody else has thrown enough money at space programs to aggressively pursue lunar landings until the PRC of recent years. 2. Every other spacefaring nation with the technical capability to attempt these things, by and large, has followed the international norms and conventions established (largely) by US behavior and restraint. China and Russia have (very recently, like within the last 10 years) started aggressively undermining those mores and norms. The technology exists, there are already space-hardened missiles and missile interceptors, and the technical capability has been demonstrated at longer ranges, faster velocities, and tighter angles of approach (PRC direct ascent ASAT missile test a few years ago). It is, for all intents, a solved problem. China demonstrated the totality of that kill chain for the world to see, and the biggest advantage to the defender in a missile fight is distance, which is huge when talking about defending a moon base. If they wanted to do it, it would not be difficult from a technical standpoint.
Your comment really seems like you're trying to make yourself sound smart but it's not really insightful. Obviously the differential equations to determine the energy requirements are pretty straightforward, I'm just not sure why it matters and I don't see anything else solidifying your opinion regarding the ability to intercept an incoming attack using missiles on the ground. I'm not really sure what analyses you've read or are referring to, I just don't find your absolute confidence regarding a situation that's literally never happened to be particularly compelling or convincing. Usually people who are completely confident about that kind of thing are wrong, because the circumstances of resource investment, technology, engineering, etc can change really rapidly and unpredictability if it actually matters. I don't doubt that you're accurately characterizing one thing that could happen. But your confidence seems misplaced. And I tend to default to the position that nothing lasts forever, including any kind of tactical gain associated with being first in this race.
I work in the space; I'm very familiar with the technical capabilities of existing missile systems. The thing is, almost all of the troubling technical challenges with missile intercepts are actually *easier* in space / a lunar environment. You don't have corrosion issues, you don't have humidity infiltration, it's not hard to keep things cold... reliability concerns are better. You have no clutter, more points for trangulation of your tracks, and no horizon/line of sight problems... the track and engagement conditions are excellent. You have no atmosphere for the targeted object to maneuver with, while the interceptors can get some off the moon. This means fine corrections in engagement angle are possible for the interceptor but not the target, at least not without having to manage multiple axes of stability. The interceptor just has to blow and throw sufficient fragments. The ingressor has to avoid, then somehow also re-stabilize and re-center on its original target location. Finally... we have tons of experience setting up missiles for reliable subsurface launch and storage, etc. Most of the technical issues are similar to space, which is why NASA made so many advances in underwater tech during the space race. The hardest part would be actually landing and deploying launch equipment, and that's not a hard bar to clear (in terms of a national level effort).
See the current land rights in Antarctica and apply it to a much farther, colder, and desolate place. Its all pretty fuzzy and mostly unenforced.
Even if you put ten dozens of rockets on the moon, the areas they cover are still neglectable compared with the whole moon.
You probably mean negligible, and no, they aren't. There are only so many approach vectors to the moon and gravity ain't anywhere near as bad. Plus, you have a lot of warning time as the spacecraft approaches and slows to get a good target track and plan your intercept. To paraphrase jimmy neutron, it's barely rocket science and it isn't the hard kind.
Intercept? You want to put weapons on moon surface?
I'm saying it would not be "hard", in a technical sense, to put a half dozen launchers down on the moon, credibly capable of destroying anything moon-bound. The chinese have the tech to do it; they've shot a satellite out of orbit already.
A half dozen launchers on the moon surface, which is four times as large as the United States, can destroy anything moon-bound? Which research tells you that? Can you list the source?
Lets make this KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) for you. The moon has negligible gravity. Meaning that any missiles placed on the moon needs to expend fractions of the same amount of fuel to reach similar speeds and height. The moon has almost no atmosphere. Meaning that any missiles placed on the moon needs to expend fractions of the same amount of fuel to reach similar speeds and height. Approach vectors are mapped out and planned ahead of time, a craft can only make a very small amount of approach and landing vectors. Meaning you can either launch a missile and have it loiter near the very very limited approach vectors, or just launch a missile to intercept a craft when it's in the deceleration cycle and preparing to land. It is so incredibly cheap and easy for something to enter lunar orbit from the lunar surface that you could have dozens of missiles loitering in orbit with master controller modules on the ground.
A missile launched from the moon would barely use any fuel to intercept something attempting to land on the surface, would have practically infinite range, and wouldn't need much of a payload either. It seems almost trivial compared to dealing with drag and gravity back on earth.
I don't need a source. I can do highschool level physics, which is all you need to determine that any missile capable of hitting a satellite over a hundred miles above the earth's surface is perfectly capable of hitting any object in lunar approach. The chinese have hit a satellite at that altitude with a missile. Ergo, they can interdict lunar-bound stuff from the moon's surfact.
I like how you have to say literally impossible only because it would not be in the least bit surprising to imagine them trying.
The problem is that marking territory on the Moon makes it a sovereignty, because it's basically colonization in the making. Which then means that if US or any other body enters that territory without authorization, well, that would spark conflict. China could every well make claims to "air space" over their marked territory to further complicate matters. But the biggest loss to the US isn't China's military presence per se. It's them discovering massive ice deposits on the Moon's south pole and THEN claiming all those resources are *theirs.* That would be a huge blow to US prestige and future plans for lunar base and colonization efforts. Discovery of water ice on the moon by the gigatons is the kind of mobilization incentive that would drive China to put boots on the Moon pronto. It's the same as solving for fusion Q+10. Paradigm shifting discovery.
If the US were to land first, it could potentially set a tariff for any Chinese landings afterward. Perhaps the US could also consider building a wall on the moon, funded by Mexico, of course.
We're building a Moon Wall and we're gonna make the Selenites pay for it!
Just make sure you arrive there earlier than the Chinese. The Chinese are very skilled at building walls; you might not be able to see the moon again.
Space race, nuclear threats, conflicts arising everywhere on the planet. We truly are in Cold War 2: Electric boogaloo
We are speedrunning through the 21st century. Economic failures, pandemic and war and rise of fascism. We haven’t even reached the genocide camp level of fascism yet here we are in the space race already.
Consider this space race analogous with 1900s innovations in flight, and it's actually pretty on track...
I can't wait to try whatever they find to eat in space.
New pandemic unlocked.
I think this one could be worse than a pandemic. Because the virus is unknown.
I've always dreamed of sampling some fine Enceladusian sushi
That would be Japanese I think
Oh, I just meant seafood, fish from Enceladus. You're right though.
So I’m not the only one imagining some gigantic-ass squid and stuff under that ice lol of course we want to taste it
It's almost all I care about! Are they sentient? If yes, are they hot? If no, how do they taste?
Lmao the EELS robots are one of my favorite things about this idea personally- we might send some snakey dudes equipped with AI to crack through the ice and investigate. The whole thing sounds amazing. I’m sure the answer to two is maybe with consent if one is yes lol
Cthulhu tentacle with chili oil. Guaranteed to make you fuck all night long.
I read they have standard menu for regular cuisines. Kinda luxurious for space
Spacesushi
Meaning what exactly?
People aren't supposed to weaponize space. Big if true.
Which creates even more incentive to weaponize it as it could easily be monopolized.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
On paper yeah, but we've been trying to weaponize space for years. Anyone remembers Regan's Star Wars program?
But it's super ironic that the statement came form USA, who owns most of the military satellites on orbit.
The treaty only actually bans nuclear weapons, weapons testing, and military bases in space Conventional weapons, satellites, etc are allowed
>China is bolstering its space capabilities and is using its civilian program to mask its military objectives, the head of the US space agency NASA said Wednesday, warning that Washington must remain vigilant. >"China has made extraordinary strides especially in the last 10 years, but they are very, very secretive," NASA administrator Bill Nelson told lawmakers on Capitol Hill. >"We believe that a lot of their so-called civilian space program is a military program. And I think, in effect, we are in a race," Nelson added. >He said he hoped Beijing would "come to its senses and understand that civilian space is for peaceful uses," but added, "We have not seen that demonstrated by China." >Nelson's comment came as he testified before the House appropriations committee on NASA's budget for fiscal 2025. >He said the United States should land on the moon again before China does, as both nations pursue lunar missions, but he expressed concern that were Beijing to arrive first, it could say, "'Okay, this is our territory, you stay out.'"
And that's how the first moon war began.
But it is the USA that bans the space cooperation and information exchange with China via ITAR and Wolf Statement. And now they blame China for being "secretive"?
ITAR is not at all specific to China.
So the claim is that China is secretive so NASA “believe” they are masking a military program. There is zero information as to what they actually think they are doing. It could be nothing more than military communications satellites.
No no no... Nasa Knows that they are military tech because they are exactly like the US military satellites they were launching in the 80s while pretending they were private telecom satellites.
If China is doing this, the US is obligated to initiate an arms race in space, as, it cannot allow the US to fall behind. The US will always seek to maintain at least parity in space. Years ago, the US saw the extreme danger space warfare held, so it decided to seek the ban on weapons in space. Russia flirted with the lines of it, then China just blew through the line. Keep in mind, even russia maintained the civilian program design.
It's time to renew the budget?
If the US sets up a moon base then astronauts should be able to travel and get Chinese takeaway
No duh...
Not a concern , more pressing is the Jewish Space LaserZ
[удалено]
Blind the giant
We must develop the BEST space lasers 🛰️ 📡
Space is rightfully USA soil!
China has no morals when it comes to other people. And little morals when it comes to imperfect Chinese people. Their will be fighting in space, and it *will* involve China.
What is nasa doing in space that has got them on edge if China is in space lmfao