‘Space cleaner’ satellite spotted grabbing and throwing away old satellite(dw.com)
dw.com
‘Space cleaner’ satellite spotted grabbing and throwing away old satellite
https://www.dw.com/en/chinese-space-cleaner-spotted-grabbing-and-throwing-away-old-satellite/a-60658574
84 comments
> But that might just be my German upbringing where media is being required by law to disclose at least the company and the editorial board/staff.
Did you miss that it's a republished DW article?
Did you miss that it's a republished DW article?
Wow. I missed that. But that would explain my feelings towards the article.
If I want to know what the neocons in the US think about things, I always turn to dw ...
Couldn't agree more. Sadly paid with my tax Euros.
But I believe the less I care the less it impacts me directly. There is actually nothing I could do as there is not one viable political alternative promoting defunding DW.
But I believe the less I care the less it impacts me directly. There is actually nothing I could do as there is not one viable political alternative promoting defunding DW.
Original link (and maybe the submission URL should be changed to this, per HN policy): https://www.dw.com/en/chinese-space-cleaner-spotted-grabbing...
Ok, changed from https://science.thewire.in/spaceflight/chinese-sj-21-satelli.... Thanks!
Propaganda aside, I feel there's a wasted opp here... what if it was 'launched' at the moon, maybe even pinpoint launched, to something near the moon that slowly pushed it towards a big incinerator or something that disassembled, sorted the materials and burned it down to minerals and eventually someone could bring those back home to earth or use them up there in a space factory to build stuff...
I think it'd be cool AF if we built a space city on the moon that actually handled the majority of space mission builds and even launches. We'd still need to launch from here to get materials and people there, but once there ....astronauts could train etc....perhaps the building people live in could spin or something to give the guise of gravity, and everyone could wear waited outfits too, it'd also be a place for scientists to experiment w/ anti-gravity tech maybe...
I really think space mining should also be a thing, and would love to see drones that build more drones for mining, and building stuff as well as bigger and bigger telescopes further and further from earth and in places that are better blocked out by the Sun, like orbiting Saturn or something so maybe when it's facing the sun it refills it's battery and when it's in the dark zone it is taking photos...
I think it'd be cool AF if we built a space city on the moon that actually handled the majority of space mission builds and even launches. We'd still need to launch from here to get materials and people there, but once there ....astronauts could train etc....perhaps the building people live in could spin or something to give the guise of gravity, and everyone could wear waited outfits too, it'd also be a place for scientists to experiment w/ anti-gravity tech maybe...
I really think space mining should also be a thing, and would love to see drones that build more drones for mining, and building stuff as well as bigger and bigger telescopes further and further from earth and in places that are better blocked out by the Sun, like orbiting Saturn or something so maybe when it's facing the sun it refills it's battery and when it's in the dark zone it is taking photos...
I was going to say we don't recycle satellites by launching them to the moon for the same reason we don't recycle things on earth by sending them to the other side of the earth, but we do actually do that by sending recycling in the US to China. The real barrier is cost - the delta v you need to shoot something to the moon is much larger than what you'd need to de-orbit something
Surely if you wanted to take down an enemy satellite there would be easier ways than sending a robot arm satellite out after it.
Just blowing them up creates debris that are a risk to your own satellites and has more chance of reprisals from other nations because it's a more broadly destructive and you might hit other satellites. Selectively deorbiting enemy satellites is a much cleaner way, like the difference between carpet bombing and a GPS/laser guided precision bombing. In space there's an incentive to be careful about widespread destruction because the debris spread out over time and fall through lower orbits risking a lot of other satellites that weren't the target.
GPS laser guided precision bombing, like with drone strikes? With teams of highly trained people at every step of the decision?
When actual numbers were leaked about use of drones and "precision" bombing by the US, arguably the most competent, rigorously trained, elite military on the planet, directly answerable to elected leadership, the rate of "bystander" to "target" kills was 5 to 1. Biden bombed a car full of children during his Afghanistan debacle. Oops.
It's probably not a good idea for non space agency leaders, military or otherwise, to have tools that physically interact with stuff in space. There's not an institution on the planet competent and responsible enough to avoid unintended catastrophe once military conflict escalates to orbit.
When actual numbers were leaked about use of drones and "precision" bombing by the US, arguably the most competent, rigorously trained, elite military on the planet, directly answerable to elected leadership, the rate of "bystander" to "target" kills was 5 to 1. Biden bombed a car full of children during his Afghanistan debacle. Oops.
It's probably not a good idea for non space agency leaders, military or otherwise, to have tools that physically interact with stuff in space. There's not an institution on the planet competent and responsible enough to avoid unintended catastrophe once military conflict escalates to orbit.
The strikes are pretty accurate, the use of them and the planning behind it is where the unintended deaths come from, the weapons go where they're pointed they're just wielded by people who don't care about the people directly nearby or getting it wrong. The analogy holds for the various types of anti-satellite weapons, among them this is a very precise tool.
> It's probably not a good idea for non space agency leaders, military or otherwise, to have tools that physically interact with stuff in space. There's not an institution on the planet competent and responsible enough to avoid unintended catastrophe once military conflict escalates to orbit.
I think the technological cat is out of the proverbial bag on this one.
> It's probably not a good idea for non space agency leaders, military or otherwise, to have tools that physically interact with stuff in space. There's not an institution on the planet competent and responsible enough to avoid unintended catastrophe once military conflict escalates to orbit.
I think the technological cat is out of the proverbial bag on this one.
Every modern army is completely reliant on military satellites. I think the idea is a surgical strike that doesn't leave space clogged up with debris for the next few hundred years.
As a non-destructive method, a robot arm satellite actually seems pretty effective. If you destroy the satellite, a bunch of debris gets sent out in that orbit and others nearby, poisoning those orbits.
I'm curious, what other non-destructive methods are there?
I'm curious, what other non-destructive methods are there?
You could give it a retrograde kick so it descends into atmospheric drag.
You can instead refuel it or attach a new maneuvering unit to revitalize its mission.
You can instead refuel it or attach a new maneuvering unit to revitalize its mission.
other methods kind of leaves a mess that pisses off other people.
Doesn't this provide the information you need?
https://thewire.in/about-us
https://thewire.in/about-us
I was not able (on mobile) to find that link. I looked at DuckDuckGo and read up on them.
The disaster that is mobile "optimizations" strikes again. Sigh.
> China’s space tug: A service or a threat?
"China is providing mitigation against Kessler syndrome. Here's why this is Bad."
"China is providing mitigation against Kessler syndrome. Here's why this is Bad."
Disingenuous take. The threat is the potential dual use of the technology — civilian and military. Are you saying there is no harm use of such technology? You are committing the very misinformation sin you are bashing the media for.
How is that disingenuous? It is precisely what is going on here. Between 2 recent bills, the US govt has earmarked nearly a billion dollars explicitly for funding anti-China propaganda in the global media. That's a lot of articles.
Anything can be weaponized or misused; it's a common framework for negative propaganda. "Our civilized technology, their barbaric weapons". It is also not a free pass from scrutiny.
Anything can be weaponized or misused; it's a common framework for negative propaganda. "Our civilized technology, their barbaric weapons". It is also not a free pass from scrutiny.
I know the COMPETES Act, but what is the other one?
Strategic Competition Act of 2021 - $300,000,000 towards propaganda
COMPETES Act of 2022 - $500,000,000 towards propaganda
COMPETES Act of 2022 - $500,000,000 towards propaganda
Is there any way to tell exactly what was actually paid for with these funds?
Indeed, it's not propaganda. I hear from my Indian friends that The Wire is a great outlet and trustworthy source.
>Wow. In the beginning I found the article interesting before (in my subjective eyes) it turned into a thinly veiled Anti-China propaganda piece.
Domain is .in, you didn't have to open it.
Domain is .in, you didn't have to open it.
Wouldn't that imply that every single published thing under the .in-TLD is just pro US propaganda. I wouldn't go so far and discredit a whole TLD as a prior in my mind.
Not necessarily pro-US, but definitely anti-China. It's analogous to pro-Russian news coverage in mainstream American media. Not gonna happen.
Pretty cool exercise.
I wonder why governments are concerned over military use with this technology. If anyone wanted to bring a satellite down, wouldn't it be easier to just blow it up with a projectile/hack it/jam it/laser it? The military option of developing a complicated satellite robot to push satellites off orbit sounds stupid.
I wonder why governments are concerned over military use with this technology. If anyone wanted to bring a satellite down, wouldn't it be easier to just blow it up with a projectile/hack it/jam it/laser it? The military option of developing a complicated satellite robot to push satellites off orbit sounds stupid.
The military implications are likely less about de-orbiting & more about in-orbit docking and manipulation expertise.
IMHO, space is big + satellites are hard to track, if they're highly-maneuverable or designed to be stealthy = possibility of launching untracked microsatellites that couple with space assets and wait for activation
Critically, add in the fact that most space-based assets are likely several years, or even decades old, and designed to minimize mass, and I'd hazard almost no satellites have on-board sensors designed to detect approaching objects.
Consequently, the first signal you get is when your satellite goes dead or tracking telemetry shows it moving without command.
Which is vastly sneakier than a huge IR bloom from a known missile site for an anti-satellite missile launch (that also happens to look like an ICBM launch).
Edit: For precedent, Red Storm Rising (1986, Tom Clancy & Larry Bond, back when Clancy wrote more hard military thrillers and wasn't yet a name brand) discusses a then-current conflict between NATO and the USSR that features Soviet grappling satellites quietly taking out NATO space assets as part of a surprise first strike.
IMHO, space is big + satellites are hard to track, if they're highly-maneuverable or designed to be stealthy = possibility of launching untracked microsatellites that couple with space assets and wait for activation
Critically, add in the fact that most space-based assets are likely several years, or even decades old, and designed to minimize mass, and I'd hazard almost no satellites have on-board sensors designed to detect approaching objects.
Consequently, the first signal you get is when your satellite goes dead or tracking telemetry shows it moving without command.
Which is vastly sneakier than a huge IR bloom from a known missile site for an anti-satellite missile launch (that also happens to look like an ICBM launch).
Edit: For precedent, Red Storm Rising (1986, Tom Clancy & Larry Bond, back when Clancy wrote more hard military thrillers and wasn't yet a name brand) discusses a then-current conflict between NATO and the USSR that features Soviet grappling satellites quietly taking out NATO space assets as part of a surprise first strike.
> IMHO, space is big + satellites are hard to track, if they're highly-maneuverable or designed to be stealthy = possibility of launching untracked microsatellites that couple with space assets and wait for activation
From what I've read, I understand it to be more of the opposite: there's nothing to hide behind in space, and NORAD and NASA track nearly every piece of debris in orbit, not to mention satellites. So it would be hard for an adversary to do anything like that sneakily, even if there might not be any countermeasures (unclassified ones, anyway). I'm no expert, of course.
From what I've read, I understand it to be more of the opposite: there's nothing to hide behind in space, and NORAD and NASA track nearly every piece of debris in orbit, not to mention satellites. So it would be hard for an adversary to do anything like that sneakily, even if there might not be any countermeasures (unclassified ones, anyway). I'm no expert, of course.
Everything that reflects radar... most space junk isn't trying to hide, nor manuevering under power.
The security model for satellites has historically been one of assuming physical access was effectively impossible. With technology like this that assumption is going to evolve into needing to consider protections against tampering where physical access is possible.
The primary issue with space weapons is space is big and stuff is moving in insanely quickly. Current anti satellite weapons don’t need to enter orbit they basically stand in front of one and get run over. That works for a single satellite, but the side effect is debris from such collisions may end up taking out your own satellites.
Yanking a satellite out of orbit avoids such collateral damage. Any practical weapon would need a lot of deltaV but Ion drives plus solar panels could be enough.
Yanking a satellite out of orbit avoids such collateral damage. Any practical weapon would need a lot of deltaV but Ion drives plus solar panels could be enough.
You could, but the missiles would generate debris on impact. They could also be intercepted in some circumstances.
Instead if you position a bunch of "service" and "maintenance" satellites that are conveniently in orbits near enemy satellites (in terms of delta-V) then basically get to prestage the entire event before war actually breaks out.
There are plenty of satellites that basically spend time "near" unfriendly nations satellites. This is mostly for counter-intelligence as far as I can tell.
To disable an enemy satellite quietly one theory I heard was to simply carry a can of black spray paint aboard, then use it to coat the enemy satellite when you want to disable it. Anything optical would be disabled immediately. The satellite would probably overheat because the reflective coating would be gone.
Instead if you position a bunch of "service" and "maintenance" satellites that are conveniently in orbits near enemy satellites (in terms of delta-V) then basically get to prestage the entire event before war actually breaks out.
There are plenty of satellites that basically spend time "near" unfriendly nations satellites. This is mostly for counter-intelligence as far as I can tell.
To disable an enemy satellite quietly one theory I heard was to simply carry a can of black spray paint aboard, then use it to coat the enemy satellite when you want to disable it. Anything optical would be disabled immediately. The satellite would probably overheat because the reflective coating would be gone.
That spray paint idea is very interesting.
I imagine you could get some very extreme temperature differentials with a good paintball shot in the right location.
I imagine you could get some very extreme temperature differentials with a good paintball shot in the right location.
Good point. A paintball is simpler and easier than a spray can anyways. As a bonus, if it hits something weak it will probably destroy or damage that component in the process.
Probably too energetically intense, but what if it pushed a junk satellite into one of their military satellites?
Also, there have been rumors that a number of ‘dead’ satellites are actually spy satellites using the ‘dead’ status as cover, which maybe this could make no longer tenable with some plausible deniability?
Also, there have been rumors that a number of ‘dead’ satellites are actually spy satellites using the ‘dead’ status as cover, which maybe this could make no longer tenable with some plausible deniability?
If you're a country with your own satellites, most ASAT weapons are a problem because they create debris that hinders your own operations. Countries like the US also have their own satellites that can immediately detect terrestrial missile launches, so you don't have much in the way of plausible deniability. While the launch of your space-tug would still be tracked, it's a little bit more obfuscated since you can launch months or years before you maneuver into position.
Once you're close enough to interact with a satellite, you can also visually inspect or even retrieve it, which might yield useful information.
Once you're close enough to interact with a satellite, you can also visually inspect or even retrieve it, which might yield useful information.
You can’t shoot down very many satellites until you poison the orbits with debris that knocks out all satellites.
If you can grab and deorbit a satellite, you can also grab it and steal it to learn its secrets.
If you can grab and deorbit a satellite, you can also grab it and steal it to learn its secrets.
Plus they're loaded with really good materials. I know little, but one example is gold in the welds--for satellites, and only for satellites, some contact or weld is done with 80% gold, 20% tin, which is the best for corrosion, some special qualities. Also heat foil is solid gold.
But only on satellites.
But only on satellites.
You’re right about some of the contacts, but the foil on the outside is similar to mylar, a plastic-based aluminised film.
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/good-gold-are-satellites-co...
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/good-gold-are-satellites-co...
Well a McLaren talked about using gold foil on the inside in its cars, because it was efficient according to some metric and was used in aerospace.
I highly doubt all satellites since 1957 used the same material, and further that it's that easy to find out what it is.
But I believe you, I bet that's a common foil they typically or even uniformly use for a lot of things.
I highly doubt all satellites since 1957 used the same material, and further that it's that easy to find out what it is.
But I believe you, I bet that's a common foil they typically or even uniformly use for a lot of things.
I think you're referring to McLaren lining their engine bay with a thin layer of gold? The use case here was very good heat transfer with low weight, since you only need a very thin layer to do it. "Aerospace" is unfortunately a word that is overused by PR departments because it sounds flash. "Aircraft-grade aluminum" is the main one. It's a meaningless word because it just means some particular alloy of the metal.
The difference is that here McClaren wants to transfer heat via condution very efficiently. In space you can't do that because everything is in vacuum - condution is very inefficient. So the way you get heat in or out is via radiation, and that means the Sun is a problem. The films around satellites are designed to reflect sunlight. The gold in there is probably kapton, or something very similar. Polyimides were developed by DuPont in the 1950s and in the 60s they came up with Kapton which is now ubiquitous in electronics (flexible PCBs for example). Kapton was used on the Lunar Module (and other bits):
https://apollo11space.com/apollo-11-kapton-foil/
Some of the best-in-class films today are manufactured by a company called Dunmore. They made insulation layers for Hubble, Curiosity, JWST and some other high profile missions. All these companies do defense contracting so they probably make films for spy satellites as well.
https://www.dunmore.com/industries/insulation.html
The difference is that here McClaren wants to transfer heat via condution very efficiently. In space you can't do that because everything is in vacuum - condution is very inefficient. So the way you get heat in or out is via radiation, and that means the Sun is a problem. The films around satellites are designed to reflect sunlight. The gold in there is probably kapton, or something very similar. Polyimides were developed by DuPont in the 1950s and in the 60s they came up with Kapton which is now ubiquitous in electronics (flexible PCBs for example). Kapton was used on the Lunar Module (and other bits):
https://apollo11space.com/apollo-11-kapton-foil/
Some of the best-in-class films today are manufactured by a company called Dunmore. They made insulation layers for Hubble, Curiosity, JWST and some other high profile missions. All these companies do defense contracting so they probably make films for spy satellites as well.
https://www.dunmore.com/industries/insulation.html
Thank you very much, that is the knowledge I wanted to communicate.
Astronaut's helmet visor is another one.
Astronaut's helmet visor is another one.
The debris could pose a danger to their own satellites.
Plausible deniability.
The ExoAnalytic video mentioned in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDCLpXCB62w
What is with the bizarre robotic voiceover? Extremely unsettling.
I know an Indian guy who uses it in every video because he doesn't want people to make fun of his accent
He's trading possible accent issues for me (and a lot of people) refusing to watch the video.
If your video has a robotic voice I assume it's spam, worse the voice is so annoying that I won't stay around long enough to find out otherwise.
If your video has a robotic voice I assume it's spam, worse the voice is so annoying that I won't stay around long enough to find out otherwise.
I've started to notice a lot more videos using TTS voices for narration, presumably because the quality of said voices is increasing.
Increasing "enough" is subjective of course.
It could be that the creator doesn't feel confident recording themselves doing the voiceover, regardless of nationality.
Or they are recording the video in many different languages and it's easier/cheaper to get text translated than to find voice talent in multiple languages.
Increasing "enough" is subjective of course.
It could be that the creator doesn't feel confident recording themselves doing the voiceover, regardless of nationality.
Or they are recording the video in many different languages and it's easier/cheaper to get text translated than to find voice talent in multiple languages.
As a random thought experiment, would a spacex starship with some sort of unfolding kilometre-scale "net" (made of aerogel or whatever) be able to effectively sweep common orbital planes for the microscopic bits of crap floating around? Then furl the net all back up in the cargo bay, land and recycle/dispose of the debris?
I am guessing - given that starship is planned to be able to go to mars - that there is enough fuel and power available that it'd be fairly trivial to just scoop up defunct satellites in the huge cargo hold and deorbit them safely for refurbishment/disposal on the ground. (After all they've shown they can rendevous with ISS etc so I am guessing this is largely the same approach to rendevous with a dead satellite) Guessing you could comfortably hold quite a few satellites inside a starship meaning one launch could collect a whole range of dead satellites?
I am guessing - given that starship is planned to be able to go to mars - that there is enough fuel and power available that it'd be fairly trivial to just scoop up defunct satellites in the huge cargo hold and deorbit them safely for refurbishment/disposal on the ground. (After all they've shown they can rendevous with ISS etc so I am guessing this is largely the same approach to rendevous with a dead satellite) Guessing you could comfortably hold quite a few satellites inside a starship meaning one launch could collect a whole range of dead satellites?
anything in orbit is falling, not floating. Most of them falling at terrific rates oh and in lots of different directions. that net would have to be incredibly strong, also be able to stop spalling when objects in the net collide...
A few problems holding a solution like that back right now:
1) It takes a ton of fuel to change your orbit once you're in space, and space is _really_ big (even just the orbital ranges we're talking about). It's just not currently feasible for a ship like that to capture debris and then use _more_ fuel to bring it back down.
2) Relative velocities of some debris are so large (and they are so spread out) that it's not yet feasible to capture it and bring it back with any current approach.
Dead satellites are mostly dangerous for the scattered debris they _might_ become if something hits them/they bread up. So while bringing them back is important, it's not as immediate a danger as things that have already broken up.
Basically, we don't have any approach that would make a major difference, even if money was no object (which it is).
1) It takes a ton of fuel to change your orbit once you're in space, and space is _really_ big (even just the orbital ranges we're talking about). It's just not currently feasible for a ship like that to capture debris and then use _more_ fuel to bring it back down.
2) Relative velocities of some debris are so large (and they are so spread out) that it's not yet feasible to capture it and bring it back with any current approach.
Dead satellites are mostly dangerous for the scattered debris they _might_ become if something hits them/they bread up. So while bringing them back is important, it's not as immediate a danger as things that have already broken up.
Basically, we don't have any approach that would make a major difference, even if money was no object (which it is).
It's probably easier to remove all pastic junk from the great pacific garbage patch, where stuff doesn't move around at relativistic speeds.
It's not even close to feasible IMO. These pieces of debris are traveling many times faster than bullets and they have significant mass. They would rip aerogel to shreds. You would need square kilometers of bulletproof armor. Imagine a project to catch all the fish in the ocean except the ocean is a million times bigger, the fish are going as fast as bullets, and every fishing trawler costs a billion dollars. And you can't sell the fish to fund it.
Retrieving whole defunct satellites is possible but only one or two at a time because of the huge amount of fuel needed to match orbits with each one. And once you've grabbed one it takes even more fuel to de-orbit it (which you'll notice didn't happen here). Don't forget that every maneuver you make as a spacecraft has to use extra fuel just to haul all the fuel for every future maneuver you'll ever do, and that compounds for every lifetime maneuver.
It's worthwhile to dispose of old satellites so they don't collide and produce debris clouds that are basically impossible to clean forever, but it's not funded.
Retrieving whole defunct satellites is possible but only one or two at a time because of the huge amount of fuel needed to match orbits with each one. And once you've grabbed one it takes even more fuel to de-orbit it (which you'll notice didn't happen here). Don't forget that every maneuver you make as a spacecraft has to use extra fuel just to haul all the fuel for every future maneuver you'll ever do, and that compounds for every lifetime maneuver.
It's worthwhile to dispose of old satellites so they don't collide and produce debris clouds that are basically impossible to clean forever, but it's not funded.
Perhaps they are making amends after their missile test and it’s debris generating aftermath? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/science/china-debris-spac...
Another explanation might be dispose the old one before it was captured by other countries, otherwise the potential harm could be too great.
This will be a fun cat and mouse game when sats are rigged to catch one of these and explode.
"China clears space junk, but at what cost?!"
It's a Chinese satellite and it's obviously worrying the US because it can theoretically be used to interfere with their military satellites.
This seems like something that would be almost trivial to develop once you have basic orbital stationkeeping capability. The challenge with the trash tug use case is you want your spacecraft to survive engaging a randomly tumbling object with a mass that could be substantially greater than its own. You don’t need that if you just want to interfere.
I would be very surprised if strategic DoD satellites didn't have some kind of close-in defense capability to ward off any vehicles sniffing about.
I would be very surprised if strategic DoD satellites didn't have some kind of close-in defense capability to ward off any vehicles sniffing about.
Meanwhile the X-37 is doing...whatever it is it does.
There are much simpler ways to destroy enemy satellites. You wouldn't necessarily go out of your way to gently decommission them.
wow cool.
This would be a great US engineering accomplishment but it's a terrible Chinese accomplishment because it may be used in war. As if the US is not capable of and eager to weaponise absolutely everything!
This shows China is ahead in the space race.
This shows China is ahead in the space race.
I'm not sure that using a single data point is a valid way to determine who is "ahead".
I think it's undeniable to say "the Chinese space program is progressing at a faster rate than NASA."
But, it's also starting from farther behind. But, it's also starting with more modern technology. But, it's also working under a command economy.
And that's not including US private space companies. Read: SpaceX.
But, it's also starting from farther behind. But, it's also starting with more modern technology. But, it's also working under a command economy.
And that's not including US private space companies. Read: SpaceX.
If we limit it to just Earth science NASA appears to be ahead.
https://essp.nasa.gov/earth-pathfinder-quests/projects/activ...
If we include space telescopes, missions on and around other planets, space weather monitoring, solar exploration, and such NASA appears to be ahead.
Saying "progressing at a fast rate than NASA" is just word games since they start from such a lower level and doesn't reflect the reality on the ground.
EDIT: I provided the above as supporting evidence not to start an argument.
https://essp.nasa.gov/earth-pathfinder-quests/projects/activ...
If we include space telescopes, missions on and around other planets, space weather monitoring, solar exploration, and such NASA appears to be ahead.
Saying "progressing at a fast rate than NASA" is just word games since they start from such a lower level and doesn't reflect the reality on the ground.
EDIT: I provided the above as supporting evidence not to start an argument.
GPS vs. BeiDou
Arecibo vs. FAST
China recently deployed their own Space Station and Mars Rover, etc...
Political and ideological biases aside, it's pretty obvious which space program has more vitality in the current decade. Both sides certainly have novel tech, but what about the bigger trends?
Arecibo vs. FAST
China recently deployed their own Space Station and Mars Rover, etc...
Political and ideological biases aside, it's pretty obvious which space program has more vitality in the current decade. Both sides certainly have novel tech, but what about the bigger trends?
Actually it is sad that they get so little attention in the west. Space exploration from anyone is really interesting stuff, and we should be rather agnostic with whom we follow.
> GPS vs. BeiDou
How is BeiDou evidence for what you claim?
> Arecibo vs. FAST
Lots of other scopes that have capabilities that neither A or F have.
> China recently deployed their own Space Station and Mars Rover, etc...
These aren't examples of them being ahead. They may, however, may be examples of them reaching parity.
How is BeiDou evidence for what you claim?
> Arecibo vs. FAST
Lots of other scopes that have capabilities that neither A or F have.
> China recently deployed their own Space Station and Mars Rover, etc...
These aren't examples of them being ahead. They may, however, may be examples of them reaching parity.
BeiDou is more precise than US govt's GPS
Can be more precise, it isn't more accurate in all use cases. Also the GPS Block III birds have enhancements to improve accuracy and related metrics.
I wouldn’t say this alone indicates China is ahead. Chinese economic growth is truly the key here. Technological capabilities are trivial if you have dramatically more resources than your competitors.
There's nothing in this project the US could not easily do, and the US still has more resources than China. China is just more willing to allocate those resource to this type of project. Undoubtably the military applications had only made the choice to allocate funding even easily. The US has other more pressing issues and allocating billions of dollars to clean up space isn't appealing to the majority of voters.
In the US any NASA project is and will be hampered by competing states wanting the resulting jobs coming to their own cities. China might be behind the US for now in space race and many science fields but the trajectory they are moving at they are likely to get ahead. I do wonder sometimes if the creationist and other such bullshit anti science getting larger support in the US might be a well a financed trojan horse.
I don’t know how the US could possibly have more resources than China.
It’s still the largest of the two economies.
...by GDP, which is absolutely not a representation of economic resources, especially with how USA calculates GDP.
China has something like >1000% as many people working in technical industry jobs as USA, and a massive trade surplus. The two economies are not even comparable. One prints the global reserve currency and smears it around in FIRE, the other makes things.
China has something like >1000% as many people working in technical industry jobs as USA, and a massive trade surplus. The two economies are not even comparable. One prints the global reserve currency and smears it around in FIRE, the other makes things.
But I have to admit as a propaganda piece it was done quite well. Pull interested readers in letting them swallow the hook.
Then broaden the scope to tell the reader that other, more US friendly nations are currently either testing the concept or planning something in the future. While not pointing out that the US seemingly do not to have cleanup missions planned.
Then question your own propaganda in a not very believable manner but still in the end leave the reader doubting the intentions of the Chinese.
Mission accomplished.
The best part: Try to find on the site who is behind that publication. No imprint. Nothing about the editorial team. Nothing about the company.
I actually don't trust media outlets that don't tell who the are. But that might just be my German upbringing where media is being required by law to disclose at least the company and the editorial board/staff.
-----
Update for transparency reasons as separate part
Having read about the publication behind this site I admit that they seem to be one of the better structures in media all over the world.
I recommend reading about the reason why it was founded [0].
Still the piece per se irks me. But I give the the benefit of the doubt and would not call it propaganda anymore.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire_%28India%29?wprov=sfl...