>China and Russia are building and deploying disruptive space technologies, thus we must do the same,
Diplomacy would be much cheaper, but this would mean US would also stop doing this kind of shit and that would mean less money into the pockets of the military industry. Diplomacy seems also something that most leaders are missing.
> Competition is already fierce, with Russia and China challenging the United States for leadership
That's incorrect. Russia hardly ever pushes new things in space lately. China has carefully launched several manned flights, and works hard in government space; but no commercial revolution in space of SpaceX scale anywhere on the horizon, for good reasons.
The biggest opponent of USA in space today is USA itself.
> The other upside, is that if the US achieves space superiority (which it already has)
Why do you think the US has space superiority? Currently the US has no capability to send humans into space, we use the Russian Soyuz program for this.
> If we could get the top 5 GDP nations to contribute 1% of their GDP to a proper global space program we'd have 400+ billion dollars a year
You know what's more likely than getting the top 5 GDP nations to donate 1% to a collaborative space program? Obtaining peace on Earth, because that's exactly what you'll need to reach your goal.
> I don't believe that China (or Russia?) subscribe to that kind of regulation.
> How do we incentivise all countries with launch capabilities to be good citizens in space?
re: China and Russia, we need to worry more about how to get Space Marines and defense systems up there.
The whole "co-operative, neutral citizens of space" ship has long since sailed, and anyone who thinks we shouldn't at least treat it like contested international waters is naive.
>Couldn't we please just swap the NASA and military budgets for one year? Just one.
No, but we could just give DARPA to NASA, since they should both be doing roughly the same thing anyway, and the gov't probably loses some few hundreds of millions of dollars maintaining a superfluous bureaucracy to manage DARPA.
It would also be nice if the next revolutionary rocket technology were to be used primarily to go to other planets and explore space, rather than to kill peasants in Asia, but that is a secondary consideration.
> Russia Has Four Potential "Killer Satellites" In Orbit, At Least That We Know About
As opposed to the operational ASAT system that the United States operates?
> space isn't safe for blue team anymore
'Blue Team' that's the good guys, right?
Besides the fact that space is inherently unsafe, it is the United States that has taken the lead in the militarization of space. Heck the US Space Force even has a website: https://www.spaceforce.mil/ , I'd assume they have some actual capabilities as well.
> something China is also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI")
Which of course doesn't happen anywhere else.
Really, I think your comment could use some balance. From the point of view of an inhabitant of a small nation that does not have its own space capability it sure looks like the United States is a very large part of the problem.
>That current cooperation may not be geared towards knowledge transfer doesn't mean it couldn't be. For example the US helped Great Britain extensively in the 60's and 70's on the space front and other areas, not to the extent that the UK was unable to do it themselves but to successfully boot strap their efforts.
The problem is there is a big crossover between space tech and missile tech, so you have to see that other country as a very close ally to start that kind of tech transfer.
>There's other examples too: Despite a chilly relationship and very different values, the US and Russia have worked together for two decades on the ISS. The world is littered with current projects or their results that involved significant international cooperation and shared expertise.
All tech they both already had.
> Practically no country has independently built all of the technology that it both uses, fully understands, and can now produce on its own.
That isn't an argument for choosing to transfer a particular technology to a particular country.
>What we're really talking about here is teaching-- teaching another country how to do something. I don't need how teaching necessarily disadvantages the student country. It doesn't replace their own initiative to learn and internalize the material, but it does bootstrap the process.
It makes that tech much more easily spread in an age where the west is already worrying about North Korea/Iran/etc's long range missile programs (which they are collaborating on!, point you, but thats a reason why not to share technology willy nilly, point me).
The Russian program seems to be weaker at operationalizing in 2023 but still has a lot of IP from the USSR era.
China is making massive strides but doesn't seem to have as deep IP experience yet.
Imo I wouldn't oversell the Chinese and undersell the Russians.
> JAXA and ISRO would most likely contribute with base components or related
That tracks, and fits with their specialities.
Also, I didn't realize JAXA, ESA, and ISRO are part of Artemis. NASA needs to have a better PR team. The Chinese Lunar Base is getting so much PR despite being much more behind Artemis
Edit: they signed the Artemis accords, they are not part of the similarly named Artemis Program
>the US is the only space faring nation that is trying hard to be collaborative and inclusive
Hasn't the US been using Russian facilities and rockets to go to the (jointy built with Russia and others) ISS for the past decades? That seems collaborative to me...
> I'd prefer countries to cooperate more. There's no need to have dozens of national space stations or even launch systems. Some diversity is Ok, but it's just too damn expensive.
The reason the Ariane (rocket) program exists is because the US put restrictions on European satellites if they wanted to launch on US rockets.
I'm all for cooperation, but often times you need a strong alternative in order to negotiate effectively.
It would be interesting to provoke big guys to start applying weaponry in space for a systemic cause. Not sure it would go easily.
Even modern developments with Starlink can still bring questions. If, e.g., China forbids Starlink from providing service to China territory, and Musk ignores that and goes ahead, and China starts shooting down Starlink satellites - ?.. Will U.S. in this case stay silent? It's a different case, of course, but - is using weapons in space that easy and close?
> We need to be mass producing missile frigates, oil-tanker-conversions as escort carriers, 1,000s of F35s, 1,000s of F22s, renovating every single plane in the Bone Yard that can be turned into a drone, and sending $1 Billion a month to SpaceX to get the StarShip operational for the High Frontier.
Why? This isn't all-out war nor do we need to militarize space.
> Well China has outspent Tesla by a massive margin.
> So has Russia. So has NASA. Same with Europe.
> Not to mention Boeing, ULA, or other long time rocket technology suppliers.
Do you have sources for these claims with respect to rocket technology? SpaceX has raised $10 billion to spend pretty much only on rockets - again, the easiest part of space technology by far. The rest of the money is going to comm satellites, which are also know to be a pretty easy technology. The budgets for these space agencies are bigger, but they are also spending on much more complicated things like science mission payloads. Not to mention all the pork.
> He also seems to have a secret superpower for plowing through government red tape and bureaucracy. I have no idea how he does that, but both with Tesla and SpaceX it has made a significant difference. Easy not to notice that, but a lot of ambitions have been ground down with resource attrition on that mountain.
That superpower is lying. When you claim that you have capabilities you don't, they pay you to develop them until they figure out you were BS-ing in the first place. This is what happened with the rural broadband subsidies.
Diplomacy would be much cheaper, but this would mean US would also stop doing this kind of shit and that would mean less money into the pockets of the military industry. Diplomacy seems also something that most leaders are missing.
reply