If you're not sure whether you're facilitating interesting conversation, here's the key: what's interesting are the diffs : the specific, interesting details that haven't been repeated before or elsewhere. Ask yourself whether your comment could appear in any thread on some generally related theme (e.g. space, China). If yes, it's probably not interesting in the sense we're shooting for here. The goal is to consider things we haven't before.
Please note: this isn't about being 'positive' vs. 'negative' - it's about not being repetitive/predictable. That's different.
None of our inventions arise from a vacuum. Cars are still as wide as Roman chariots for good reason. Power transfer uses the same base principles as were in play during the dawn of steam engines and before. Energy conversion has been an iterative process for centuries, with the odd leap and bound.
Industrial espionage exists because it works, and everyone does it because it's a cheap way to come up to speed with the leading edge of human knowledge rather than unnecessarily duplicating effort.
Crying "No fair! You stole it!" sounds more like a petulant child than anything else.
It's also exactly what made nasa in the first place, with America stealing much of rocket science from the Germans in the wake of WW2.
And, in addition, the Germans in the 1930s got a lot of good information from Robert H. Goddard, the inventor who built the first liquid-fueled rocket; Werner von Braun said, about him, "His rockets ... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles." There was a large exchange of information in most areas of physics between very illustrious German and American physicists.
I think that having more people doing more science enriches everyone. Without American and German scientists working sharing information, it would have taken a lot longer to have the space technology that we currently do.
That is true even when two countries have political tension, as Germany and America had in the 1930s. China may have political rivalry with America, but science should take a lead in exchanging ideas, learning from each other, and developing new ideas that will enrich all of humanity.
It's not about rockets in general, but about rocket fuel specifically. It's the "#1 Best Seller in Petroleum (Engineering)" category:
Is that true? I have read that, unlike the German rocket club, Goddard was very secretive — more like closed-source.
Thanks to the open German rocket club, they solved the engineering difficulty of a high speed pump to deliver fuel to the engines. Goddard appears to have stalled there.
So the U.S. gets the German scientists, some hardware. They seem to have wanted to have both a peaceful, scientific track for rocket research and a military one.
Werner got the military track with the Army. Developing, among other things, the Redstone.
The peaceful, scientific track became NASA when Sputnik circled the Earth. Failing to get their own JPL rockets off the ground, the U.S. turns to the Army .... hey, Werner, anything you can do with your Redstone to help us out here?
That's my take anyhow. Someone with deeper historical knowledge can correct my wild generalizations.
Goddard's early launches were made possible by a Smithsonian grant of $5000 by Charles Greeley Abbot from the Hodgkins fund. After being ridiculed in the NYT in 1920 he got more cautious about PR. After a Lindbergh visit, the Guggenheims helped him find another $100,000.
Germany didn't need 'help' from Goddard; they had Oberth, who did a PhD thesis on rocketry in 1922, and published The Rocket into Planetary Space in 1923.
"Space historians typically name three pioneers as the founding fathers of astronautics: Tsiolkovsky [a Russian teachr when Goddard was still a teen], the American Robert Goddard, and the German (although Romanian-born) Hermann Oberth." 
> That is true even when two countries have political tension, as Germany and America had in the 1930s. China may have political rivalry with America, but science should take a lead in exchanging ideas, learning from each other, and developing new ideas that will enrich all of humanity.
You're only saying this because America stopped Germany. You might as well be telling the French why sharing their science with 1930's Germany is a net good. What about a hypothetical where that French 30's science was the defining factor in Germany being able to conquer them?
What % of the scientific community would it take to convince their government to be open about sharing their knowledgebase? seems unrealistic with their current 'climate'.
To the extent that high value workers knew that they were treasure to be looted they might have decided that the US was a least worse option.
Yes, that lines up with von Braun's account of his motivations.
> We knew that we had created a new means of warfare, and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else. We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided not by the laws of materialism but by Christianity and humanity could such an assurance to the world be best secured.
I'm not particularly convinced by this man's praise of America and talk of Christianity, I think he was brown-nosing just a little bit... but it does seem clear he preferred America to the Soviets.
He really write that? That’s some chutzpah.
Also interesting is that the V-2 missile was called a “ vengeance weapon”  but Allied bombing of Germany hadn’t started when the V-2 started. 
On 22 December 1942, Adolf Hitler ordered the production of the A-4 as a "vengeance weapon", and the Peenemünde group developed it to target London.
See siblings comments about Mittelwerk, eg. Also Chabon's (fictional) novel Moonglow covers some of this history well.
Not at all the same as what's going on right now 
It's like when people gave credit to Hitler for infrastructure projects such as the Autobahns which were already in progress before he took office.
I think the main gripe with China's process is that they don't do the latter. They produce replica's then herald them as original works of the mightiest country on the planet. Everyone everywhere steals, but China does it with a little more 'F-U' than most countries, and tend to use what they steal to oppress.
I spent a few years working for a defense contractor out of college, and Chinese IPs were probing every internet facing server we had 24/7.
> Industrial Espionage....
> Crying "No fair! You stole it!" sounds more like a petulant child than anything else.
Pointing it out as a matter of economic and national security is far from a childish thing to do. If you're government is willing to subjugate people into slave labor at a massive scale while at the same time stealing the IP born from fairer societies, that creates an uneven competitive landscape, which ultimately works against the fairer societies. Think of it this way: Safety nets cost money, but the return you get is smarter people taking bigger risks and creating new useful things. If you get all the benefits of that (IP) and don't have to pay, you will win, and create a crappier world in the process. I'd liken it to brain drain. You spend all this money educating people only to have the return on that investment go elsewhere.
I know the immediate response to this is going to be "But America did such and such...". I don't care what America did. When someone is on trial for stealing a car, talking about how someone else stole a bike isn't a defense.
How are all the other countries, who follow US IP laws and trade regulations, pulling themselves out of poverty? Are they doing it as fast as China is?
It is always in the interest of a more developed country to set IP terms, because they own the patents and the manufacturing processes, and they can advantage themselves at the expense of everyone else. Look at how Mexico fared in NAFTA, or what the terms of the TPP were. All of this is completely beside the point of who has a more "fair" or more "just" regime. China did what they needed to do to develop their economy: steal American IP and ignore American trade laws and patents.
Second, the list of underdeveloped countries that care about US IP laws is non-existent. The US doesn't care. It only matters when the country is wealthy and advanced enough to do something with the IP that it matters.
Third, I don't see how it being in the US's interest to protect their IP makes protecting the IP wrong.
Forth, you've rebutted none of my actual points, and ignored my last sentence.
Well, this actually reminded me the case of Apple issued Microsoft for the infringement in 1988 , and Apple did not win because the Mac UI was actually 'referenced' from Xerox as well.
A trivial example: a nephew of mine proudly showed his drawings. They were really fantastic for his age, and everyone told him so. Turns out, he drew them by putting paper on a computer monitor (this was back when CRTs were still the fashion) and tracing. That did change the perception of merit a bit. The difference in the difficulty underlies the difference in appreciation.
To make my stance entirely clear: this is not meant to condone or condemn either side.
T. S. Eliot’s dictum: “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn.”
Wasn't it an American who said "good artists copy, great artists steal"?
e.g. Soviet Union vs United States.
I like it, I welcome it - it begs to open the purse and spend and brings the most creative solutions to the table.
Like computers, boy what a fad!
China merely isn't just engaged in industrial espionage because it works to not duplicate effort. They steal to undermine the effort of the people that made it possible to begin with. In many cases ruining the companies that made the original innovation. This isnt crying and whinging for no reason it's unethical and wrong. This isnt a two way street where chinese innovations are helping our world. Almost everything the Chinese steal all while burning through natural resources and at alarming pace and injecting the most harmful substances into the environment. And be honest they are simply doing this to saberrattle the US and create propoganda to legitmaze an oppressive state. So, yes it's not only unfair, it's evil. And I'm not happy for China.
Just stealing isn’t enough. Russia, I believe, ended up admitting stealing research on the Space Shuttle, and despite that their own project never really materialised. Even. You steal, that lets you catch up, not overtake.
So even if China is helping themselves (again, I don’t know), they still have to innovate and improve. Good on them if they do. And then, their own technology is also ripe for the taking if that’s how the game works.
It’s all progress one way or the other.
It strikes me every time hearing such argument from people completely oblivious to the above fact.
Life is rarely that simple - there are also sociological/societal causes plus the required surrounding infrastructure.
China has made dramatic leaps in technological capability but they still can't make a good competitive jet engine and they've been pouring resources into that for literally decades.
Even if you have the plans (and realistically they probably do) just the metallurgy alone is an absolute nightmare.
There are a handful of countries that can do it reasonably well and only a couple of companies that can do it approaching the state of the art.
General Electric and Rolls Royce (with P&W following behind) - there are a few other smaller companies and CFM International which is GE and one of the smaller companies, Safran (used to be Snecma).
That is just one area - in the long term who knows but in the mid-term China will do well to achieve equivalency in a number of areas (and in fairness they know this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025)
The US probably also suffers from a surfeit of “scientists” as the Thiel theory would have it, just not as bad of a problem as China.
You also have to consider culture as well, some cultures tend towards innovation more than others - which I guess fundamentally is how 'free' people are to try things and whether it's top down control or not.
Innovation has many fathers.
So it was not only about money. Although the financial problems were certainly one of the biggest root causes.
Then soviet system had faced several humiliating defeats a few years earlier, robbing it's system of it's facade of invincibility - the invasion of Afganistan and Chernobyl disaster among them.
In the mid eighties, the oil price crashed, and in order to feed the USSR, they had to take out increasingly large hard currency loans, which eventually got so big, that the only way to make them happen was with western government backing. The (implicit or explicit) condition was that if they rolled tanks in Poland or East Germany, the money, and hence the grain, would be cut off. Gorbachev said in an interview that in 1988 or 1989, the USSR was months away from mass starvation had the imports ceased.
Some give Reagan credit for convincing the Saudis to pump more oil and set this chain of events in motion, but I have no idea if that's true or not. Of course I'm disregarding why exactly it was that the USSR couldn't produce enough food with the massive amount of arable land available to it, or why it exactly there were these pro-democracy movements popping up in Poland and East Germany and other places in the Warsaw Pact.
In today's world, where we are used to working with millisecond latencies across thousands of kilometers, just to be able to do something with latency of minutes to tens of hours, boggles my mind!
Amazing accomplishment of humankind!
a Japanese holdout who did not surrender at the war's end in August 1945. After the war ended Onoda spent 29 years hiding out in the Philippines until his former commander travelled from Japan to formally relieve him from duty by order of Emperor Shōwa in 1974.
From the little I understand, these chips behave a quite a bit different than the types of stuff we work with. For one, you have to assume that your programs will be corrupted via cosmic rays causing bit-flips. Chips are slower and more rigorous as a result.
This being HN, there may be a person on here that can speak more to program design with space rated hardware. I'd love to learn a bit more!
Modern computing is all complementary mosfet based. You have a transistor to pull the signal up quickly, and a transistor to pull the signal down quickly.
The thing with CMOS is that, if both transistors turn on at the same time, it creates a short circuit. Depending on details of how the silicon was actually made, a short like that could either permanently cause damage, or it could just cause the circuit to transiently crap out until it reboots.
Exotic radioactive particles have a tendency to turn mosfets on when they smash into them. This can cause those sorts of short circuits. Some computers blow up, while others just stop working until power cycled.
In space, you obviously don't want to use the computers that blow up when that happens. If you use the computers that just transiently fail, then you generally need to have redundant computers able to keep the rest of the system running while they reboot the computer that failed. That does add a lot of software complexity, but at least the computers are relatively normal.
Transistors are less likely to be toggled by radiation the larger and more capacitive (slow to toggle) they are, so if you make a computer with big slow transistors, it will be unlikely to crap out even if a bunch of radiation is hitting it. That's handy because the software can actually be really simple. You just run your program and trust that it will be reliable enough to get it's job done.
Not all errant transistor flips cause a short circuit, they may just cause a miscalculation. Most of the calculations a computer does don't actually matter, and no one ever notices. It does mean the computer is slightly irrational, though, and that's bad for a computer. There's chips that have hardware support for detecting miscalculations and memory corruption. There's nothing particularly special about writing software for them. Typically you just need to implement an interrupt handler for when the hardware detects corruption, and you need to write a task that periodically reads every physical memory address so that the memory controller can proactively fix any bit flips in the memory.
Is this type of survey also possible from the orbiter? Though it would not be as hi-def as from the land level, but more extensive coverage.
The rover itself is not as larges as the Perseverance or Curiosity, but their orbiter seems a quite heavy probe. Hope we will get some detailed high-resolution images of the surface from the orbiter, so that we can have even better surface maps of Mars.
Also the CNSA programs don't get as much coverage in the West. Their Chang'e 5 lunar sample return probe was quite a good achievement, with they being able to do an autonomous docking in lunar orbit.
A video of the sample transfer in lunar orbit:
That said, absolutely amazing to see happen! Here is hoping that it lasts long past the design date like the others tend to do.
Photon mentioned in a sibling comment builds on that idea by providing a bus with engines to make it into a simple spacecraft. I don't know of any off-the-shelf rover platforms yet but can absolutely see the same thing happening when there's enough demand / cost of access to places worth roving around is cheaper.
1. The CNSA is severely underfunded in recent years, to the extent that a considerable amount of space tech graduates went directly into other more "lucrative" fields such as the IT industry.
2. This landing operation was not announced beforehand. This is a bit unusual, when compared to the past operations, e. g. the first manned space flight, where the national news network kept broadcasting the whole event. The CNSA seemed a little unconfident about it.
3. This year is the 100th anniversary for the CCP.
4. Given 1, 2 and 3, and how things work in the PRC, this Mars landing thing is more likely a "present" for the CCP anniversary, intended to strive for more funding. If the operation failed, they'd probably postpone the whole announcement till a more "proper" time, since nobody even know they tried to land the rover.
So, the current atmosphere in the CNSA may be a little tense. A failure may make them lose their already-tiny funding, and they did this (at this timing) to please the CCP in order to get more support. I respect all those engineers and scientists who made the marvel achievement, but this is not a pretty scene. And as a Chinese, I don't like it at all.
What? Here’s CNSA’s official Weibo account announcing yesterday that the rover will land in Utopia Planitia between May 15 and May 19, depending on local landing conditions. A brief Google News search turned up reports from before the landing, e.g.  quoting a speech delivered on the 13th by a Chinese Academy of Sciences professor at Beijing Institute of Technology mentioning that the rover will land on the 15th.
Edit: And here’s People’s Daily posting the same CNSA announcement yesterday: https://m.weibo.cn/2803301701/4636812058297556 A search of “天问” there turns up regular updates too, pretty conclusively debunking the “nobody even know” claim.
Given that your first piece of evidence isn’t sourced (yet) and I can’t find anything on it (maybe the space tech graduates flocking to IT part is true, but few sectors pay better to begin with, so that’s not a good indication of underfunding; it’s not like NASA pays anywhere close to FAANG), your second piece of evidence is easy to check and doesn’t stand, and your third piece of evidence is circumferential and akin to Kremlinology, it’s hard to take your conclusions seriously.
It is not an understatement for me to say that I abhor the US empire as a whole and their destructive effects on the sovereignty of the larger world. However, when I'm reading about a NASA project, I don't have the knee jerk reaction of "it's American! BAD!!!" That's because while there is some political gain to be had from the prestige of a space agency, there is very little direct economic or military advantage and the main purpose is scientific enrichment which has been beneficial for humanity as a whole, not just the US. NASA astronauts, scientists, and engineers may have their own nationalistic biases but I don't doubt that their primary motivation is a love for space sciences and they tend to have a more cosmopolitian view of humanity's future anyway. The same was true of the Russians and the Chinese who worked in this sector.
Now, there could be case to be made that the CCP could decide to hoard the scientific data for themselves and refuse to share it to the wider public but until I see this in action, I will remain cautiously optimistic. Roscosmos (formerly CCCP) were able to collaborate with NASA despite their host nations being mortal enemies on the wider world stage so I don't see why the CCP would risk hampering their progress by becoming isolationist when it comes to space research
Furthermore, this is a monumental achievement considering this is the first successful non US landing on Mars and was achieved on their first try! the countries are able to send probes there, the more data we can gather and that's always a net good.
Now if only the Russians could manage to dissolve the curse they seem to have when it comes to Mars rover missions, then we could have a seriously potent race.
I'm sorry if people think about a bit more than something that will have tiny to no effect on their life quality in their lifetime. Especially for someone who is Chinese.
To be fair, NASA has the same problem. Rocket science just doesn’t pay as well as a FAANG programming job, even if you are trained up for the former. At lot of fields that traditionally attracted smart people are suffering similar issues.
As for secrecy. I believe it comes mostly from CNSA's lack of confidence. This is the first time they ever sent something this far and they are attempt to land all in one go. Its daunting to think all the systems that have to work right on the first try. If I were them, I would be unconfident as well. I think they are trying to keep the expectation in check, not wanting to hype the thing. Give them the breathing room if they fail.
Yes, CNSA has strong political pressure to not fail. That's due to: 1) public support for the country continue to spend money on sending fireworks to the sky and 2) public confidence in country's system. But it doesn't mean failures are not tolerated. For example, the long march 5 rocket failed during development, and resulted in 3 year delay in the program and pushed back all the launch missions, like tianwen-1, chang'e5. change5 was supposed to launch in 2018, and it sat in the hanger for 2 years. The chang'e team didn't even know what to work on. But the rocket team got support. Learn from failures, troubleshoot, improve processes. I am sure if tianwen-1 failed, the team will get support. They will learn, and try again. I think the political pressure is not all terrible in healthy dose. It ensures people are working carefully, thinking fully, creating processes and methods, to ensure stuff gets done. Without political pressure, you will see more "corruption" and "bureaucracy".
Also think about what the news will be if china space missions did fail.
tianwen has been in the works for a decade now, they didn't start this recently and time it to ccp's 100th anniversary. The launch in 2020 was because the mars launch window. ccp is saying many years now that they support the space endeavor and what china to progress in science and tech. Support for CNSA only got stronger in recent years.
As for money. Pay is a issue in China for scientists and researchers in general. Especially, in all of the state-owned sectors and public institutions, not just space. Your front line workers will leave when pressure and money are not in balance. Until no one is there working for you. So at some point leaders will realize its not sustainable. And given the political goal of improving science, research and tech in china, pay is going to be a central problem needs to be tackled.
Lastly, I feel like regardless of politics, we should be proud of this moment. 2200 years after 屈原 stared at the stars and wrote the poem 问天，we built a spacecraft landed on another planet, bring Chinese characters to it for the first time in history. 遂古之初，谁传道之？上下未形，何由考之？Does it not have certain romance to it?
90 days, doesn't that seem short?
Also, there are dozens of ways to make the mission last longer but no ways of accomplishing that without adding more weight.
What’s actually so harsh about Mars?
Let’s imagine some alien civilization tries to send a probe to Earth, they’d be saying things like:
“Dude, that atmosphere is gonna burn our shit up before it even touches ground, if we’re not careful.”
“Holy shit, what are these huge animals with long noses and big ears? They’re gonna destroy our probe if they walk over it.”
“Let’s avoid landing in that area where those bipedals are still waging war.”
“The rain is acidic! WT bloody F?”
“Ugh, those black-and-white swimming things seem like assholes who like to play with their food, let’s steer clear of them.”
It is hot like an oven, with 400F temperatures, and multiple ATM pressures. It is much a more challenging environment.
You can shield the probes from sulfuric acid and pressure, but it's hard to keep electronics cool for longer than few hours. Mean surface temperature is 464 °C. (867 °F). Doing science experiments is even harder.
You would basically have to use a crazy high temperature reactor like those envisioned for project Pluto, but setup to somehow produce useful work instead of propulsion, to get the necessary power needed to reach sane cold side temperatures on your heat pump.
That way you can cool the probe down every time you reel it in instead of making it withstand the hellish temperatures for extended amounts of time.
Honestly, I didn't even know about this mission until now. Good for China. I like "monuments" that countries engage in. They're not new. This is what Apollo was too. Better this than an F-35.
If bananas have taught us anything, it's that monocultures are bad (reinforced by the various COVID vaccines I might add). If SpaceX and all the "me toos" have taught us anything is that space (engineering) is hard.
The longevity of the NASA rovers is almost legendary at this point. They too were originally designed for 90 day missions. It'll be interesting to see how long this Chinese rover lasts.
If it's much shorter, which is what I suspect, I hope the lesson people take is just what an accomplishment the NASA rovers are rather than just cheap nationalistic shots at the Chinese space agency.
However I don't mind that China copies stuff, my biggest issue is how asymmetric their commercial policies are. Actually, pretty much any policy they have is very anti non Han Chinese
If China had any flavour of democracy I'd be much more supportive, my views intersect with many different aspects of Chinese culture
I wish my country would adopt some of the successful policies China has, without the absolute disregard for personal freedom/rights
For example the helicopter was slung underneath the latest NASA lander, and though it had a protective shell, you still don't want a rock to whack that
Arguably, though sky-crane is cool and clever, it isn't so much more complex than a system in which the rover must drive off a landing platform after it is safely down. That also has a lot of moving parts and opportunities for failure
But if a sky-crane lander lands successfully, at least you can be sure it isn't already covered in grit and dust
as China's Yutu-2 moon rover is still operational on the far side of the moon, if Rongzhu mars rover could be successfully deployed, assuming those two rovers (Yutu-2 on the moon and Rongzhu on the mars) can communicate with each other, via some relies of course, will that make it the first communication between two planets outside earth? has that been done before?
Q: Are the landing sites even remotely close to each other?
Q: Had any of sides incorporated this somehow unexpected counterpart into their master programs? Can they update the programs at all?
The two rovers are 1873 km away from each other.
calculation and sources: https://gist.github.com/krisoft/4f06624a79f4a0df1107fb29be99...
I doubt they incorporated the knowledge of another rover in their code but I believe JPL rovers are “driven” by humans and do not explore autonomously. Due to the delay, the commands are slightly higher level (short term setpoints) but the point is that a human would have to command the rover to drive into another; it wouldn’t happen automatically.
It’s my opinion that the first space race served as a proxy for an even more expensive arms race, and a way to channel unavoidable nationalism/idealism into good for all humankind.
The United States and China cannot avoid competition, as Thucydides would assert. A space race is a blessing in this context - I hope it heats up.
The other significant thing is that there is now a bit more urgency to the matter of getting humans back to the moon and eventually to Mars. The Chinese are preparing to set up their own space station and are obviously interested in going to the moon and Mars and they seem to have the technical capability to get there. It's a bit like the early days of the space age when NASA and the Russians were competing for getting there first. NASA seems busy fighting domestic battles for funding rather than getting stuff done. They got a lucky break with SpaceX having a bit more focus on that front and proposing something that might actually fly. Now they need to get serious about actually making that happen. If they don't, somebody else will.
Is it the Vikram lander that was destroyed while landing because of a software glitch?
The Long March 8 architecture looks like it’s suitable for adaptation for first stage recovery, and they have expressed the intention to attempt it, so China are lining up to overtake Russia as the strongest competitor to the US in space technology.
China did a really good job figuring out the know-hows and had their domestic team geared up for the job. That is nothing to be dismissed, like tired 'China can't do shit without stealing our technology' circlejerks would like to indicate.
but also, for balance:
Or is going to the moon and Mars the achievement of certain parts of humanity, to be kept secret from other unwanted parts of humanity?
They didn’t achieve this in a vacuum, let’s not perpetuate the notion that China is isolated from the rest of the world.
That said, congratulations to China for this achievement, and the more rovers we have on mars, the more science we learn. I hope China also has a new space telescope on their to-do list.
A rover on Mars is a huge thing! Why are discussions relatively tame now?
In this case it was known that the rover would be on Mars sometime in "mid-May" -- and now suddenly it's here. No globally oriented, in-the-moment PR. You can't fault anyone for it not being as immediately recognized and discussed as the other two.
* Russia built a rocket that almost put its enormous core stage in orbit -- Energia -- but were careful that it didn't. 2 launches total.
* The Space Shuttle was careful to not put its enormous external tank into orbit. 100+ launches.
It's one thing to lose control of a space station before it re-enters, numerous countries have had that happen. It's another to design a launch system that's intended to have a large thing re-enter uncontrolled. Russia? Never. US? Never.
So the comparison is between western corporate media vs. Chinese state media. That said, internet discussion forums like this are a good counter balance to corporate media
Seeing it as a global humanity achievement... this is great.
We need to invent fuels that weigh less to have any hope of getting enough stuff into space to undertake any seriously large achievements.
Also some fuels could be made away from the earth, making their transport easier as there would be less gravity and atmosphere to fight against (∆v would still be a thing of course).
I can definitely believe China might give that a go.
That would be fantastic!
Also, research on how to even survive Mars lets us help keep Earth’s ecosystem in better shape.
It’s hard not to laugh at that statement. China runs the largest IP theft program in the world. To the point U.S. companies factor it in when doing business there.
Just search this - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china+steals&t=fpas&ia=web
They also had the “thousand talents program”.
That’s not to say what they did was not impressive, it was. But it’s also a lot of stolen IP.
Please read the site guidelines and take them in more deeply. There's a lot there:
It always buffles me how Americans can complain about things that China does (in the business world) while being perfectly fine about what their own government does in the same space. Many actually actively promote it.
For one thing, they have a longer lifespan. The comparison of a young US stealing IP from an industrialized Britain to a young PRC stealing IP from an industrialized US makes much more sense. The argument being that “stealing IP” is what nations do to industrialize all the time.
I hope that one day we look back on Imaginary Property and the silly notion that pure information is a scarce resource that can be owned, and realize what a terrible anti-humanist idea it is. It was a concept dreamt up by lawyers primarily for lawyers.
Funnily enough, Elon Musk agrees, at least with regard to Tesla imaginary property: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you I'd hope he has the same approach with SpaceX things, but I admit I haven't looked into it as of this comment.
If you think a Mars Rover can be copied, well, you better copy one yourself...
The US didn't invent physics, didn't invent gunpowder, oil, math, textiles, ROCKETS, etc. But they did "acquire" them all, somehow.
> China runs the largest IP theft program in the world.
Most IP has been given to them by "businessmen" trying to gain and edge and betting wrong. That is not theft, if anything, is stupidity. To the degree China has stolen trade secrets, do you really think no other country has a corporate spy program? Do you not know who the biggest ip "thief" in the world is?