NASA & World Space Exploration...News, Views, Photos & videos

nativechicken

Junior Member
Registered Member
On the NASA Spaceflight Forum (NSF) under Artemis-related topics, nearly everyone now acknowledges that the U.S. cannot compete with China in lunar missions before 2030. Some participants with senior NASA backgrounds are even discussing how to terminate the SLS program as soon as possible to save budgets, redirecting resources toward "new plans" to ensure the U.S. doesn’t fall too far behind China in lunar base construction post-2035.

I find these NSF discussions utterly baffling. They still fail to recognize where the real issues lie, clinging to flawed strategies to "compete" with China. The rise and inevitable dominance of China’s space program by 2030 is already unstoppable.
 

coolgod

Brigadier
Registered Member
On the NASA Spaceflight Forum (NSF) under Artemis-related topics, nearly everyone now acknowledges that the U.S. cannot compete with China in lunar missions before 2030. Some participants with senior NASA backgrounds are even discussing how to terminate the SLS program as soon as possible to save budgets, redirecting resources toward "new plans" to ensure the U.S. doesn’t fall too far behind China in lunar base construction post-2035.

I find these NSF discussions utterly baffling. They still fail to recognize where the real issues lie, clinging to flawed strategies to "compete" with China. The rise and inevitable dominance of China’s space program by 2030 is already unstoppable.
What is white supremacy?
 

gpt

Junior Member
Registered Member
On the NASA Spaceflight Forum (NSF) under Artemis-related topics, nearly everyone now acknowledges that the U.S. cannot compete with China in lunar missions before 2030. Some participants with senior NASA backgrounds are even discussing how to terminate the SLS program as soon as possible to save budgets, redirecting resources toward "new plans" to ensure the U.S. doesn’t fall too far behind China in lunar base construction post-2035.

A lot of this is covered in the article, in short: bad politics, poor mission architecture
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The alternative they're seeking is probably to create an expendable upper stage using the existing Ship tooling. In this way they'll have created basically a 9m diameter Falcon 9. Blue Origin or Lockheed Martin/Dynetics can then supply their lunar landers which are more conventional along the lines of the Apollo style landers.

By 2030 though? Not likely.

I find these NSF discussions utterly baffling. They still fail to recognize where the real issues lie, clinging to flawed strategies to "compete" with China. The rise and inevitable dominance of China’s space program by 2030 is already unstoppable.

Gutting NASA is crazy though. It is a great agency that had a hand in a ton of aerospace technology that most people take for granted now (see my comment from earlier), including almost everything SpaceX uses.

Btw experts are not sleeping on China's aerospace sector in the mid 2030s. And reusable rockets are just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much going on right now. There are plenty of hints from Space Force, the former deputy of NASA technology already.
As an example:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

nativechicken

Junior Member
Registered Member
A lot of this is covered in the article, in short: bad politics, poor mission architecture
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The alternative they're seeking is probably to create an expendable upper stage using the existing Ship tooling. In this way they'll have created basically a 9m diameter Falcon 9. Blue Origin or Lockheed Martin/Dynetics can then supply their lunar landers which are more conventional along the lines of the Apollo style landers.

By 2030 though? Not likely.
Your statement refers to discussions from mid-last year, a proposal that resurfaces once or twice annually. Recent debates have taken a more intriguing turn. Beyond previous plans, there are now considerations to develop lighter lunar lander solutions using upgraded Dragon spacecraft, Falcon Heavy rockets, and Blue Origin's New Glenn. However, none of these approaches are projected to achieve crewed lunar landing by the 2030 deadline, as acknowledged by U.S. space communities.
Gutting NASA is crazy though. It is a great agency that had a hand in a ton of aerospace technology that most people take for granted now (see my comment from earlier), including almost everything SpaceX uses.

Btw experts are not sleeping on China's aerospace sector in the mid 2030s. And reusable rockets are just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much going on right now. There are plenty of hints from Space Force, the former deputy of NASA technology already.
As an example:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
From your referenced information, I can see that you still pay too little attention to what’s currently happening at NASA. Additionally, you haven’t deeply engaged with Chinese space enthusiast communities or seen their discussions. This isn’t just you—most space enthusiasts worldwide, including many active ones in China, remain unaware of certain developments and debates.

We closely follow what the U.S., especially NASA, is doing, constantly comparing and refining our perspectives. Thus, you fail to grasp the implications of NASA’s recent actions—what they’re attempting, what consequences they’ll bring, and what they signify—because you lack a deep understanding of China’s system (a globally recognized success). This makes it impossible for you to comprehend what I observe and foresee.

I can’t explain this simply, but I’ll tell you the outcome I see: **the U.S. is destroying its own system and doesn’t know how to rebuild it properly. Everything they’re doing will lead to their comprehensive defeat in future competition.**

Most people worldwide misjudge China’s true capabilities, distracted by superficial appearances. While China’s space sector still lags behind the U.S., it’s actively closing foundational gaps—likely within a decade. Once this phase ends, China’s progress will astonish everyone.

Take sixth-generation fighter jets as an analogy: For informed technical enthusiasts, China’s advancements in critical components and technical levels have long been evident. The physical unveiling of China’s sixth-gen fighter wasn’t a shock to us—it was confirmation. To outsiders, however, it seemed like the U.S. aeronautical advantage vanished overnight.

NASA’s fundamental problem is its failure to recognize systemic flaws. Its responses remain misguided, focusing on short-term fixes while neglecting core issues. In the mid-to-long-term competition, the U.S. is destined to lose.

NASA’s crisis lies not in technology but in **management systems, organizational strategies, and execution effectiveness**. Current technical measures can’t resolve the U.S. space industry’s strategic misalignment.

Personally, I don’t need to wait a decade to conclude: **The U.S. will lose in space**.

Expanding this topic would require tens of thousands of words to dissect U.S. space industry failures, contrasting American and Chinese perspectives. To understand why China’s approach prevails (as even the current U.S. administration acknowledges in other fields), one must analyze not just U.S. actions but also China’s methodologies through comparative, detail-level examination. A key reason America struggles to find solutions is its arrogance—the refusal to consider that its "intuition" might be wrong or that alternative approaches could be superior.
 

coolgod

Brigadier
Registered Member
Your statement refers to discussions from mid-last year, a proposal that resurfaces once or twice annually. Recent debates have taken a more intriguing turn. Beyond previous plans, there are now considerations to develop lighter lunar lander solutions using upgraded Dragon spacecraft, Falcon Heavy rockets, and Blue Origin's New Glenn. However, none of these approaches are projected to achieve crewed lunar landing by the 2030 deadline, as acknowledged by U.S. space communities.

From your referenced information, I can see that you still pay too little attention to what’s currently happening at NASA. Additionally, you haven’t deeply engaged with Chinese space enthusiast communities or seen their discussions. This isn’t just you—most space enthusiasts worldwide, including many active ones in China, remain unaware of certain developments and debates.

We closely follow what the U.S., especially NASA, is doing, constantly comparing and refining our perspectives. Thus, you fail to grasp the implications of NASA’s recent actions—what they’re attempting, what consequences they’ll bring, and what they signify—because you lack a deep understanding of China’s system (a globally recognized success). This makes it impossible for you to comprehend what I observe and foresee.

I can’t explain this simply, but I’ll tell you the outcome I see: **the U.S. is destroying its own system and doesn’t know how to rebuild it properly. Everything they’re doing will lead to their comprehensive defeat in future competition.**

Most people worldwide misjudge China’s true capabilities, distracted by superficial appearances. While China’s space sector still lags behind the U.S., it’s actively closing foundational gaps—likely within a decade. Once this phase ends, China’s progress will astonish everyone.

Take sixth-generation fighter jets as an analogy: For informed technical enthusiasts, China’s advancements in critical components and technical levels have long been evident. The physical unveiling of China’s sixth-gen fighter wasn’t a shock to us—it was confirmation. To outsiders, however, it seemed like the U.S. aeronautical advantage vanished overnight.

NASA’s fundamental problem is its failure to recognize systemic flaws. Its responses remain misguided, focusing on short-term fixes while neglecting core issues. In the mid-to-long-term competition, the U.S. is destined to lose.

NASA’s crisis lies not in technology but in **management systems, organizational strategies, and execution effectiveness**. Current technical measures can’t resolve the U.S. space industry’s strategic misalignment.

Personally, I don’t need to wait a decade to conclude: **The U.S. will lose in space**.

Expanding this topic would require tens of thousands of words to dissect U.S. space industry failures, contrasting American and Chinese perspectives. To understand why China’s approach prevails (as even the current U.S. administration acknowledges in other fields), one must analyze not just U.S. actions but also China’s methodologies through comparative, detail-level examination. A key reason America struggles to find solutions is its arrogance—the refusal to consider that its "intuition" might be wrong or that alternative approaches could be superior.
NASA is a jobs program, it is also a pork barrel project, once you understand that, everything else makes sense.
 

nativechicken

Junior Member
Registered Member
NASA is a jobs program, it is also a pork barrel project, once you understand that, everything else makes sense.


In essence, the core mission of space agencies worldwide revolves around balancing industrial development and practical survival needs – essentially managing employment and distributing "economic pies" through performance evaluations. Their fundamental responsibilities include setting technical standards, formulating long-term strategic plans (technology pre-research), and exercising financial oversight. Historically, NASA maintained some long-term planning capabilities, understanding which missions required national leadership versus those suitable for outsourcing.

However, with the rise of commercial space ventures, a dangerous mentality has emerged within NASA – completely abandoning national leadership in R&D and technical standardization, transforming itself into a mere "pie distributor." This translates to minimizing core technological planning while maximizing contract management and financial allocation. For U.S. space ambitions, this shift proves fatal. Essentially, it represents extreme liberalization where the state relinquishes control over critical IP (thus eliminating technical performance accountability), outsourcing all technological development and reserves to commercial entities.

This perspective provokes dark humor among informed observers. Common sense dictates that commercial companies – even tech giants like Google, Microsoft, NVIDIA, or Tesla – operate on 10-15 year strategic horizons at best. Their projects often prioritize hype over rigor, leaving them vulnerable to market cycles (8-10 year financial crises typically force abrupt project cancellations to preserve cash flow) and black swan events (e.g., Tesla’s recent brand damage from Musk’s political entanglements). National-level strategic planning in aerospace/defense (15-30 year cycles) CANNOT be fully entrusted to commercial entities.

The SLS program’s cost overruns stem from NASA’s historical IP ownership model (dating to Apollo) that allowed national-level technological integration. However, SLS delays (caused by Boeing’s failures and Congressional meddling) forced NASA to maintain aging technical teams due to state-held IP. Compounded by America’s industrial decay (Boeing’s engineering culture erosion via excessive Indian outsourcing, Congress’ destruction of critical SME contractors during the Constellation Program cancellation and SLS reboot), this created SLS’s current quagmire.

NASA’s proposed solution – abandoning technical governance for pure mission contracting ("achieve X goal by any means, we won’t mandate methods") with fixed-price contracts (unlike SLS’s cost-plus model) – spells disaster. By 2030-2035, U.S. space dominance will visibly crumble as NASA gutted long-term R&D capabilities and bet everything on short-term commercial ventures. Their current infatuation with Starship reflects delusional hopes that commercial firms (SpaceX’s Starlink/Tesla profits) can subsidize national priorities. This ignores market saturation ceilings, Chinese competitors poised to undercut pricing (with massive LEO constellations), Tesla’s existential crisis, global recession risks, and Musk’s financially suicidal Mars ambitions. To Chinese observers steeped in strategic patience, this represents tragic historical déjà vu – entrusting 30-year national imperatives to the whims of a few "commercial geniuses" is sheer folly (though we do admire Musk’s hustle).
 
Top