Back then in the 1960s you needed state investments to provide the capital concentration required to go forward with space technology. But right now the technology for space launch is accessible enough that private companies can do it.
You and I have a difference in understanding regarding launch technology.In my eyes, space launch technology has many technical solutions (referring to orbit insertion schemes), including traditional disposable vertical launch, various VTVL/VTHL/HTHL methods. There are single-stage to orbit and multi-stage to orbit. Primary propulsion includes rocket engines (liquid, solid,
Gel/semi-solid/solid-liquid), supersonic combustion propulsion, pulse detonation engines, and various combined cycle propulsion. Additionally, there are electromagnetic launch technology, air-based launch technology, and space elevator ascent/descent technology.The commercialization of space launch technology you mentioned only refers to VTVL. Other technical solutions are all in the early stages of technological development. These other schemes are not suitable for private enterprise investment at all, because they all involve very long cycles and require long-term subsidies (15-30 years). In fact, in its early days, SpaceX also survived thanks to government project subsidies.As I said before, the past advantage of the United States lay in its comprehensive, overwhelming lead at the technological level. The current approach is actually abandoning this method of comprehensive overwhelming lead. Instead, it is promoting leadership in certain areas. Meanwhile, current China is actually stockpiling and preparing for the kind of comprehensive overwhelming technological lead that the U.S. once had. Chinese netizens generally call it: saturation-style R&D. The core reason this is possible is that China has state-owned enterprises that are legitimate and possess cutting-edge technological capabilities and reserves. Although these state-owned enterprises may be less efficient than commercial enterprises in some areas, their key characteristic is that they are very suitable for nurturing early-stage, long-cycle cutting-edge technologies. The state is willing and able to provide continuous R&D subsidies for these technologies for 15-50 years, so that they can reach true commercial levels.Intellectual property is state-owned. As long as China recognizes that a certain field needs industrialization, with a single government directive, these advanced technologies can be provided to private/commercial space ventures, allowing them to obtain intellectual property at low cost.I really can't see how the U.S./West has any possibility of winning.
The fact SpaceX has a de facto monopoly on Western space launch also means they have access to huge amounts of capital. Which is why they can waste so much money developing things like Starship and Starlink.
The issue is, China's aerospace companies can now actually obtain massive capital to develop various space technologies and projects. Currently, China has at least 2-3 private companies proposing concepts similar to Starship (though from the perspective of enthusiasts like us, their capabilities are not highly regarded yet). Moreover, in my view, SpaceX raising huge amounts of capital to develop the Starlink project is actually the biggest reason for the decline of the U.S. space industry. Look at how China is doing it: China isn’t having a single rocket launch company raise funds. Instead, state-owned telecom operators are taking the lead to establish one or several mega-constellations of low Earth orbit satellites (actually hybrid orbit), and then opening tenders to all aerospace companies. This is the model that the U.S. government and NASA should learn from and consider. As I said earlier, what SpaceX truly proved is that a capable rocket company, with 30 specially designed reusable rockets, can advance the technology from disposable rockets to stable, mature, and reliable reusable rocket launches. The real challenge in nurturing the market isn’t the rocket, but the payload missions. Typical payload missions, such as specific satellites or space payloads, are very expensive. No one wants to place a payload on an unproven rocket (at the very least, the insurance costs would be prohibitively high). Low Earth orbit satellite constellations, on the other hand, involve launching large numbers of low-cost satellites of the same model. Even a few launch failures wouldn’t hinder the development of the operating company. This makes them particularly suitable for nurturing new startups. So, in the eyes of China’s industrial decision-makers, a low Earth orbit satellite launch market of 20,000 to 40,000 satellites could support 5,000 launch missions. Since every 30 missions could mature one reusable rocket, why not cultivate a competitive market with 15-30 commercial launch companies? Thus, the key difference between China and the U.S. lies in this: China can use lower costs to nurture dozens or even hundreds of launch companies at once, allowing them to compete freely in the market. Various space and launch technologies can develop in a balanced manner (and be incubated). In the U.S., with SpaceX’s dominance, other companies don’t even have a chance to compete. Because investors, seeing the scale of SpaceX’s Starlink today, are unwilling to fund others to build a similar system. This is the core industrial difference. I hope you understand it. I believe the current U.S. administration and American think tanks already see it. Over a decade ago, and even just three years ago, Tesla dominated the Western electric vehicle sector. But today? Tesla’s future stock price growth relies on AI and the Optimus robot, not electric vehicles.
Once China has its own reusable launch vehicles, in my opinion, it should focus on the next generation space transportation technologies. Beamed powered propulsion or nuclear propulsion. If they want to get ahead of the US that is their best bet. Because for that you need the kind of cross-field collaboration US corporates are weak with.
China operates with distinct tiers: preliminary research, development, and deployment. Whether it's laser propulsion, light sail propulsion, nuclear propulsion, and so on, these technologies are all under development (they are actually divided into two major systems: launch-to-orbit propulsion and in-space propulsion). The reusable rockets you mentioned are just one type of orbit-insertion propulsion and solution. Within China's aerospace sector, there are numerous orbit-insertion propulsion systems and solutions. VTVL is nearing practical application and deployment, while VTHL/HTHL will likely take at least 15-20 more years before large-scale commercial use. So, you don't need to worry too much about China. As a space enthusiast, I actually understand much better what China is doing than you do. Otherwise, I wouldn't be saying now that the U.S. space sector is almost certain to fall behind within about 10 years. Because when I compare every detailed field, the U.S. is currently lagging in many areas and is either too slow or inefficient and underfunded.The space sector involves many aspects. In Chinese professional literature, the space technology system encompasses five layers of technological capability. Launch capability is just one technical domain; space applications (like satellites and space stations) constitute another. Ground launch support systems are yet another major technical domain. China is looking very far ahead. The goals China has in its sights are the most glorious moments in U.S. and Soviet history, even the unrealized dreams from their plans. China is systematically making up for shortcomings in these areas (it needs to cover about 30 years of technological debt, expected to be completed around 2030-2035). Only after completing this catch-up phase will China truly transform from a major space power to a leading space power. Then, China and the U.S. will formally compete for leadership in the space domain (this was the plan as of 2016, but it now looks like it might happen earlier). So, when I look at NASA's current roadmap, I'm frankly dismayed. China is desperately learning from the U.S. model of overwhelming technological competition across all categories, while the U.S. is instead learning from China's approach of focusing on maintaining leadership in key areas. To be honest, I'm more deeply concerned and frustrated about NASA's situation than you are. NASA cannot afford to decline like this.
