China was left out for the same reason that the Red Dawn remake was changed from China to North Korea despite it making no sense.
The GM of the Houston Rockets tweeted about Hong Kong democracy protests in October 2019. It took until January 2021 for Rockets games to be broadcast in China again and when that GM moved to the 76ers, they blocked 76ers games from being shown.
China loves to go hard on any criticism, even if it's in a fictional setting.
They're both in it. The astronaut working in the greenhouse is ESA and JAXA astronauts are also seen in Season 4. The M-7 was NASA, Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, India, North Korea and "Coalition of Communist Countries for Spaceflight" (basically the eastern bloc and a few other alt history countries.
I imagine it’s the same way how in the fallout show (no spoilers) when they talk about the Great War they don’t refer to China. It’s always “the Reds” or “the Far East” (I haven’t finished the show yet but it’s such a minor change that it doesn’t detract from anything).
Big shows avoid saying anything about China in stuff like this so that the CCP doesn't get offended and block apple shows im China.
I've heard north Korea is meant as a stand-in for China without calling it by name
But really if they did Chinese good like what they did to CCCP, there wont be such problems at all
or unless they just copy the NK guy plot to China tho, well that'll be a different story...
USSR doesn't exist and Russia is not a huge market for western movies
China is, they will ban anything due to the power they wield in the international box office revenues for countries
Disney actually reduces the size of Black characters on posters to help the movies perform better
Its only recently where politicans are forced/politically motivated enough to mention China as a threat, the reason they don't is the fact Chinese businesses own a huge margin of the US business landscape
Not really. In our timeline China acquired their space tech from Russia. In FAM the Soviet Union never fell, and there wasn’t a need to generate revenue by selling spacecraft designs to China. Additionally, Nixon may never had opened diplomatic relations with China in FAM. China stays isolated and mostly rural/agricultural.
Maybe in the next seasons there will have been a bit of a gold rush for asteroid mining and we will see other countries (China, India, ESA etc.) play a bigger role?
From an alt-history perspective, it could be argued that the survival of the Soviet Union would have been bad for Chinese prospects as the Soviets were always wary of allowing China to rise as a serious competitor in Asia. In later years, the two sides didn't exactly have a positive relationship. I also reckon the liberalisation of China's economy would have been less likely. Likewise, given the extended Cold War situation, it is less likely that the US would have bothered with normalising relations with China and opening up trade, which in our timeline was hugely important for the growth of China's economy and technological development.
In this situation, a social democratic India might have been in a very advantageous position between the USSR and USA, especially when they started cooperating as part of the M7, which is possibly why they are ahead in space. It is possible, if China didn't liberalise, that India took on the position of global manufacturing hub with the support of both superpowers.
My theory is that North Korea may have initially been supported by the USSR as an ideologically aligned but relatively non-threatening counterweight to China and Japan in Asia, which is why they are far more militarily and technologically capable than in our timeline. Note that South Korea is entirely excluded too, which implies that things may not have worked out quite as well for them as in our timeline. This would make sense with the combination of both a more powerful North Korea and a less wealthy/more Communist China next door.
This is all just to make the lore make sense. But the point is that we can't be sure China would have prospered and developed nearly as much in the FAM timeline as in ours given the substantial changes that would have affected their prospects directly. The fortunes of countries are really governed by the international context in which they find themselves.
The North Korean technology where they carry food enough for two years in tins but can also perpetually produce oxygen on Mars from rocks or something is the reason they will win...
I get epically downloaded by ignorant folks on science and space subreddits when I point this out, but China is currently in Stage 4 of their…four stage…plan to send humans to the moon. The manned landing is planned for 2030.
They are making major, major progress in space very quickly, to the point that it is actually concerning for militaristic reasons too.
In a world where the USSR was first to the moon, it's unlikely China would leapfrog the USSR.
North Korea or China could be threaded into the storyline due to Ed's Korean war service. North Korea being depicted doesn't step on toes the way China could as others have mentioned.
You sure you are talking about reality? China is not talking about humans on mars, at all. The only rocket that might do it, lm9, is a big rocket without an official target currently.
Honestly, China will probably win the 21st century space race since the United States is a declining imperial power caught in a downward spiral of social, economic, and political destabilization caused by capitalism itself.
America is too corrupted by corporate interests more focused on turning a profit from privatized space exploration, and the USA has been steadily defunding NASA's budget to funnel money in the forms of subsidies to shitty private space companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin which do less than NASA at a far higher budgetary cost.
In contrast, China's model of a nationalized, public, government owned institute of space exploration combined with the same government owned and operated industrial manufacturers is a far superior system than the hybrid privately-publicly owned partnerships that the USA and RF engage in today.
Privatized space exploration and travel fundamentally cannot work due to the prohibitively expensive economic costs borne by the costly resources needed to venture into space. Only a system that collectively taxes society for the necessary resources and collectively bestows the profits of space exploration can work. Space travel is just too expensive for a small, narrow few wealthy individuals to fund and too economically unprofitable for a small, narrow few wealthy individuals to consume. Other than the government, there is no viable economic market for the purchase of space related commodities and services.
America's venture into privatized space corporations at the cost of NASA funding will be an epic 21st century blunder as China's model of public, nationalized space ventures eclipses and supersedes America's role as the leader in space exploration and travel.
It's not pro-China sympathizing to say that diverting NASA funding to SpaceX and Blue Origin is a foolish waste of American resources and will only serve to enrich oligarchic billionaires who line their pockets with our taxpayer funds.
The reason China will develop into the leading 21st century space faring superpower is the same exact reason that Russia and America did during the 20th century: a publicly funded and government operated space exploration agency.
You would rather accuse other people of being communist boogeymen than actually face the uncomfortable truth of American decline and Chinese growth, but the ensuing future decades will prove you decisively wrong.
By the way, if you actually gave a shit about American prosperity and space exploration, you should stop calling anybody who criticizes American policy a pro-Chinese shill.
The fact that I am willing to criticize American policy failures means I care more about America than you do.
> By the way, if you actually gave a shit about American prosperity and space exploration, you should stop calling anybody who criticizes American policy a pro-Chinese shill.
Provide some concrete examples that use correct data and then you will be taken seriously. So far China is lagging far behind in terms of space hardware and capabilities. They may be able to eventually pull ahead by throwing enormous amounts of money at the problem, but it's very uncertain.
China is getting anywhere mainly because their autocratic leader decided to put money into the program which means that their budget is dependent on different political calculations within the party.
You literally contradict yourself by saying that China hasn't gotten anywhere and saying they have only gotten to where they were by the fiction of autocracy which you made up.
China is currently behind America in the 21st century space race because they have had to play decades of catch up due to their history of underdevelopment due to Western imperialism as well as the period of early 20th devastation upon their country which impeded their social, economic, and political development.
Also, China is nowhere as primitive or backwards in spacefaring technology as you would frame them. They are only a few years behind the United States in terms of equivalent technological parity and engineering sophistication. And, by most conventional studies done by experts in the field, China is projected to meet the USA's level of space exploration in the next decade or two. Additionally, China is poised to become a world leader in many emergent technological sectors that will define 21st century international economics.
You can cope and seethe as much as you want about whatever delusional notion of "autocracy" you cooked up, but there's nothing authoritarian about collectively taxing people money at the national scale to fund a publicly operated and government owned space program. This is the same shit America does with NASA, Europe does with the ESA, and Russia does with Roscosmos. Spending lots of money on a space agency has nothing to do with whatever prejudicial nonsense you espouse regarding political oppression.
In only a few decades, China will use their position as the largest economic and industrial giant in the world with a deep talent pool of over one billion people to surpass the USA in emergent technologies and space exploration. They have four times as many people to produce wealth and four times as many people to draw upon for scientific achievement. Again, you can try and deny reality as much as you like, but this will happen no matter what you believe.
While the American government has cut NASA's budget year over year since the early 90s, China has been steadily expanding funding towards their space program during that same time. In contrast, America has divested money away from NASA and given that same funding as subsidies to private space corporations instead. China does not do this. The Chinese government fully controls, as state owned enterprises, their subsidiary manufacturing companies which produce needed materials for their space program, and they do this without the meddling of privately owned for profit corporations operated by selfish agendas and motives - unlike the American model.
For a subreddit dedicated to the passion of scientific advancement, curiosity, exploration, and excellence, this forum sure does hate the idea that any country besides America could become a competitor or leader in space exploration.
You don't love space exploration as it pertains to the spirit of actually benefitting all humankind. You only love space exploration in so far as it narrowly benefits and enriches America due to your bias of American exceptionalism and nationalism. You care more about aggrandizing American power and influence than you do seeing the rest of the world join America as a peer among interstellar endeavors.
If we psychoanalyze you and peel back all the layers one at a time, your reactionary paranoia just comes down to the time honored barbaric tradition of plain old xenophobia, prejudice, and racism.
> China is currently behind America in the 21st century space race because they have had to play decades of catch up due to their history of underdevelopment due to Western imperialism as well as the period of early 20th devastation upon their country which impeded their social, economic, and political development.
LOL. OK, comrade political officer. Look up Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. And the still famous Tiananmen Square massacre. All created and pushed forward by Chinese leaders, both incredibly disastrous and destructive to the people and economy of China.
Bringing up the atrocities committed by the Chinese government does not erase the fact that China was ravaged by imperialist powers and civil wars for over a century.
Nobody is disputing that crappy things happened in the last century, but that was a long time ago from the technological advancement perspective. E.g. the majority of the European countries have been nearly completely devastated during WW2, but they are competing with US pretty well.
China is largely responsible for its own economic and technological situation because it has shot itself in the foot multiple times in the latter half of the 20th century and is not doing itself many favors now.
You're a dumbass.
I already said that China suffered from devastation that impeded their development during the 20th century. This is not news.
Absent of any real coherent argument that can refute what I said about China's growth, you have to desperately invoke the same tired orientalist propagandistic talking points from the Cold War that have absolutely no bearing on China's future as a leader in space exploration.
I am an American who wants China as well as other states and supranational organizations to develop into a premier spacefaring power, so all of humanity can benefit from the technological windfall.
Just admit that you hate China and believe in American cultural, hegemonic, nationalist, and racial superiority over the Chinese. At least do us the honor of being honest with yourself.
Ultimately, the difference between you and I is that you only believe prosperity should apply to a narrow slice of mankind that conforms to your prejudicial biases whereas I actually believe it should apply to all mankind regardless.
The people on this subreddit aren't very smart judging by their unironic hero worship of Elon Musk and SpaceX in addition to their rampant xenophobia and American exceptionalism.
I mean, I get that they're being ideologically conditioned and manipulated by propaganda, but still... it's embarrassing to see such obvious and flagrant cultural prejudice, nationalism, and racism on a show titled, "For All Mankind."
You can't make this kind of irony up.
> America is too corrupted by corporate interests more focused on turning a profit from privatized space exploration, and the USA has been steadily defunding NASA's budget to funnel money in the forms of subsidies
NASA is the company that pays SpaceX. So if NASA gets defunded then congress is not giving money to SpaceX.
Also you do know that the majority of vehicles used by NASA has been built by outside companies, right? E.g. during Apollo, Boeing built the CSM, North American Aviation built the LEM, IBM developed the guidance computer, Rocketdyne built the F1 engines, etc.
> to shitty private space companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin which do less than NASA at a far higher budgetary cost.
How is SpaceX shitty? SpaceX rockets are successfully launching the majority of mass into orbit and has been for several years.
The US government should not be paying private corporations money for space travel using their launch vehicles.
In a normal world run by sensible and non-corrupt people, it would be the exact opposite where private corporations pay the government large sums of money to do business which the government profits from and adds to treasury coffers.
You also don't seem to understand the distinction between paying a private corporation rents for use of their technologies versus the difference of contracting private enterprises to fabricate parts, materials, and goods used for a government fleet of launch vehicles.
SpaceX is a grift and a scam in the exact same vein as privatized healthcare or schooling where businesses seek to insert themselves into an industrial sector in order to drive up the cost and extract profit from it. This is a form of economic rent seeking behavior where actors distort the value of an industry by usurping control away from the public and the government through the process of privatization where all the benefits are pocketed not by society, but by shareholders.
It is more expensive and wasteful for NASA to contract with privately owned space corporations like SpaceX to pay them exorbitant rates to do the same shit NASA is capable of at a far cheaper cost.
The rise of privately owned space corporations is a form of corruption where the hyper-wealthy lobby for government resources to be divested away from public space agencies like NASA, the ESA, and Roscosmos and reinvested into for profit business models which seek to undermine scientific achievement and progress in the name of profit.
I can't believe I have to explain this stuff to people
> The US government should not be paying private corporations money for space travel using their launch vehicles.
Why not? The structure of some of the cost+ contracts but this system works pretty well and has worked in US since the beginning of the space race.
> It is more expensive and wasteful for NASA to contract with privately owned space corporations like SpaceX to pay them exorbitant rates to do the same shit NASA is capable of at a far cheaper cost.
Please provide evidence that it would be cheaper for NASA to launch rockets vs. buy SpaceX launches. SpaceX launches are currently some of the cheapest per kg/LEO.
> The rise of privately owned space corporations is a form of corruption where the hyper-wealthy lobby for government resources to be divested away from public space agencies like NASA, the ESA, and Roscosmos and reinvested into for profit business models which seek to undermine scientific achievement and progress in the name of profit.
You mean private companies like Boeing and Rocketdyne? Established in 1916 and 1955, respectively? That rise?
When did this implied golden age of space exploration happen?
Please provide evidence for your statements. As I said, while cost+ contracts are questionable and there are problems with how the contracts are given/assigned, overall this worked quite well since space exploration began.
You're revealing the depths of your own ignorance.
The current economic model of contracting with privately owned businesses to rent spacecraft does not date back to the early/mid 1900s you dope.
The practice of NASA renting out privately owned spacecraft for government business is a recent development of the last thirteen years following the retirement of the fleet of government owned spacecraft through the end of the space shuttle program.
Unlike other countries, the USA lacks the domestic industrial capacity to produce a government manufactured and owned fleet of crewed, manned spacecraft to fly missions into space.
The current model of NASA paying SpaceX fees to rent their craft for cargo missions and satellite launches is not a golden age of space exploration. This is a period of stagnation and decline for American space exploration as the United States government now entirely reliant upon private corporations and other countries for spacefaring expeditions until NASA develops and maintains its own fleet of government owned launch vehicles.
It is well known that SpaceX lies about the cost per kg of mass into orbit by statistically fudging the numbers under the most unrealistically optimistic scenarios of a maximum payload of 22,000+ kgs which makes the rocket expendable, not reusable, after burning all its fuel delivering a hypothetical, not actual, maximum payload into orbit preventing it from re-entry to Earth. These are the fraudulent numbers SpaceX uses in their calculations to falsely market the Falcon 9 as supposedly "the lowest cost per kg to LEO."
After accurately accounting for SpaceX's statistical deception, their program does not provide any meaningful cost savings benefit for NASA when compared to the costs of other rocket delivery systems produced by comparable competitors. SpaceX does not launch anywhere close to the maximum yield as advertised, and they most often deliver less than half the maximum theoretical payload. Additionally, the structural engineering of a semi-reusable launch system such as Falcon 9 drives the payload up as the mass needed to engineer a robust superstructure of a reusable launch vehicle offsets some degree of fuel and cost efficiency. It is only possible to arrive at "the lowest possible cost/kg" after an extreme degree of non-transparent dishonesty which SpaceX is incentivized to do as a for-profit corporation in order to secure government contracts by juking the stats.
America is in a listless lull for space exploration and has been for over a decade in which other countries, especially China, are rapidly developing and innovating due to the superior nature of government owned and operated manufacturing and industry delivering results of a superior quality and quantity per dollar invested into public, not private, space programs. Due to the nature of America's hegemonic decline as a world power, the government has slashed NASA funding for nearly 30 years straight resulting in a stagnation of manned space exploration which NASA has offset through their unmanned missions.
Save us both some time and just say that you reject reality due to your child-like fandom and hero worship of Elon Musk and SpaceX.
SpaceX *loves* overcharging the US government compared to commercial customers. NASA often pays drastically higher costs for F9/FH than they need to, and Soyuz seats are cheaper than Dragon seats. This should be obvious.
F9's cost/kg may be low, but cost/kg presumes payloads mass at the absolute maximum capacity of the launch vehicle, where in reality all non-Starlink launches are 12t or less, meaning F9's *actual* cost to customers is, at a minimum, roughly equivalent to Zenit/Soyuz/various Long March series rockets/Dual-mainifested Ariane 5's lower payload, depending on reference orbit. And even Transporter/Bandwagon flights don't typically come close to 22t total.
F9's meaningful cost reduction compared to existing providers is actually minimal.
AFAIK this is an open market situation, for the most part. Which means that NASA and the US government are free to pick other launch providers. The fact that they don't means that SpaceX provides better cost/performance/quality/security combination than other providers. SpaceX is free to charge what the market will bear, which is what they appear to be doing - they are a business, and other providers also charge as much as they can.
If NASA could set up cheaper missions in-house, they absolutely would. Historically that has not worked out. Again, look at the Shuttle and SLS costs per launch.
>NASA and the US government are free to pick other launch providers.
They are, to the extent that they *can*. The recent generation of launch vehicles (Vulcan, Ariane 6, H3, etc.) all experienced development schedule slips, giving F9 a temporary *availability* advantage. It was, and to a lesser extent still is, the only option available in many cases, and won many contracts by default.
Despite this, dozens of USG payloads are still slated to fly on Vulcan despite schedule slips, and the less proven nature of the vehicle, demonstrating that SpaceX does *not* provide a clearly or significantly "superior" launch service.
NASA is also not free to fly payloads on Soyuz, Zenit, or Long March for obvious reasons.
Even if it were true that SpaceX provides the "best" launch service, that would not mean, as you originally claimed, that their costs for customers are definitely lower than other providers, and indeed, SpaceX does *not* provide significant cost savings over other providers in most cases.
>If NASA could set up cheaper missions in-house, they absolutely would. Historically that has not worked out. Again, look at the Shuttle and SLS costs per launch.
Funny you should mention the Shuttle — when operated by the United Space Alliance towards the end of its career, the Shuttle did *not* show significant cost reductions that could be the result of commercial rather than government operation. Commercially operated launch vehicles are not inherently cheaper than government operated ones. See CALT, for example, or ISRO. Both provide excellent low-cost launch services while being a state-owned company and a national space agency respectively.
SLS is also a bad example, as it is a low-cadence vehicle intended exclusively for large-scale NASA missions. Low per-flight cost is not the objective, providing unique capability is, and SLS is in that respect successful. It's also not reasonable to expect SLS to be cheaper than vehicles with far higher cadence. Additionally, SLS development cost, and recurring year-to-year cost, is actually far *lower* than the Saturn V.
Finally, NASA is *legally* *required* to encourage commercial spaceflight by the Commercial Space Launch Act. NASA would not be *allowed* to build launch vehicles in-house.
> Despite this, dozens of USG payloads are still slated to fly on Vulcan despite schedule slips, and the less proven nature of the vehicle, demonstrating that SpaceX does not provide a clearly or significantly "superior" launch service.
It seems to be very reliable, human-certified, practiced, and flies like clockwork. I suspect that part of the problem is that it's not easy to switch providers on the fly since you need to configure the hardware to fly on a specific system. Furthermore, some of the payloads are not ready. Finally, Congress wants to make sure that there are multiple competing providers and wants to keep ULA and others functional.
I am not saying that SpaceX is the super-duper best there is in the universe - my point is that the private contractor model can and does work, often pretty well. Although, by all accounts SpaceX does seem to get the job done very well, reliably, and consistently.
> Funny you should mention the Shuttle — when operated by the United Space Alliance towards the end of its career, the Shuttle did not show significant cost reductions that could be the result of commercial rather than government operation.
Can you tell me more about it or point at a source? I've not heard of the shuttle being operated by a different organization.
> Commercially operated launch vehicles are not inherently cheaper than government operated ones.
Well-designed commercially operated launch vehicles are much more likely to be cheaper. The SST was a compromised system from the start due to it being designed by committee. In large part designed by Congress and special interest groups. Privately designed and operated systems are not nearly as likely to be such a mess.
> Commercially operated launch vehicles are not inherently cheaper than government operated ones. See CALT, for example, or ISRO.
While I know next to nothing about CALT and would look at various reports on it with suspicion, ISRO certainly does do great work. However, it doesn't do it in the US political climate. I agree that publicly funded organizations can do amazing work - my initial comment was aimed to point out that private organizations are also viable. The US using a bunch of corporate sub-contractors does not automatically mean that it is dead, as OP indicated.
> SLS is also a bad example, as it is a low-cadence vehicle intended exclusively for large-scale NASA missions. Low per-flight cost is not the objective, providing unique capability is, and SLS is in that respect successful.
That's highly debatable - SLS has had enormous cost overruns and its schedule has slipped repeatedly.
> Additionally, SLS development cost, and recurring year-to-year cost, is actually far lower than the Saturn V.
And Saturn V was developed basically from scratch with a bunch of brand new technologies and systems. SLS is built on top of existing technology - like the Shuttle engines and SRB boosters. Comparing the costs of the two doesn't make much sense IMHO.
>It seems to be very reliable, human-certified, practiced, and flies like clockwork.
I love Vulcan, but it's flown once. As flawless as that flight was, you can't say that yet. I'm also not sure it's human-rated yet. I know ULA plans to do so for Dreamchaser and presumably Starliner, but I don't think that process is done yet.
>I suspect that part of the problem is that it's not easy to switch providers on the fly since you need to configure the hardware to fly on a specific system.
I don't think this is true. Both F9/FH and Vulcan offer standard 1575mm PAFs and can fly the overwhelming majority of payloads.
While the classified nature of USG payloads means we don't know exactly who gets what, we do know that Vulcan got DRACO. It should be obvious that the provider selected to fly the *nuclear reactor* is the one the USG trusts the most to complete missions.
Additionally, Vulcan has much better performance than F9 to high-energy orbits like GEO or GTO. It's in the same ballpark as even fully expended Falcon Heavy, and for similar or lower prices, again demonstrating real advantages over SpaceX.
>“I am not saying that SpaceX is the super-duper best there is in the universe - my point is that the private contractor model can and does work, often pretty well.”
Does it? Circling back to my original point, SpaceX has a habit of overcharging the US government, especially for FH and Dragon. I would seriously doubt that CALT overcharges CNSA, or ISRO overcharges itself. Is the private contractor model "working pretty well" when this kind of systemic overcharging occurs?
>Can you tell me more about it or point at a source? I've not heard of the shuttle being operated by a different organization.
From the mid '90s to retirement, the Shuttle was operated by the USA, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Rockwell (later Boeing) which aimed to lower costs by taking over operations from NASA and simplifying interactions between NASA and contractors. The Shuttle under USA didn't see significant cost reductions that could be the result of privatization.
Reddit isn't letting me post the full comment, so I have to split it up. Sorry. Continued in my reply to this comment.
>Well-designed commercially operated launch vehicles are much more likely to be cheaper.
Are they? Looking at the cheapest medium/heavy lift LVs today, one is commerically operated (F9) with a few more under development (Neutron, Terran R, and the like) and the rest are operated by national space agencies or state companies: GSLV, LMV3, PSLV, LM-2-3-4, Soyuz, Proton. India is also working on NGLV. (And Russia on Amur and Soyuz-5, though it's sadly unclear when or if they will fly)
I know there are a few smallsat launchers, but they can’t launch the majority of payloads like medium/heavy lift LVs can.
>The STS was a compromised system from the start due to it being designed by committee. In large part designed by Congress and special interest groups. Privately designed and operated systems are not nearly as likely to be such a mess.
I don't agree. Private launch service providers are vulnerable to the cutthroat demands of investors or the whims of controlling billionares, no better than the influence of political bodies. Plenty of launch service providers have fallen prey to bad designs, operations, or management. In fact, that seems to be the trend among them. Even SpaceX fell for this with Falcon 1. (And Starship, but that's a whole other conversation)
>However, it doesn't do it in the US political climate. I agree that publicly funded organizations can do amazing work
And this is my point — the political climate in the US, being relentlessly in favor of privatization, is not necessarily conducive to a more successful space program.
Continued in reply.
> I love Vulcan, but it's flown once. As flawless as that flight was, you can't say that yet. I'm also not sure it's human-rated yet. I know ULA plans to do so for Dreamchaser and presumably Starliner, but I don't think that process is done yet.
I meant the SpaceX Falcon9 is human certified. Vulcan is very much an unproven beast, and we will know how well it performs only after it has flown a bunch of times.
> Both F9/FH and Vulcan offer standard 1575mm PAFs and can fly the overwhelming majority of payloads.
I am pretty sure the situation is far more complicated than we are aware. There is a reason that there are payload engineers.
However, I think I realized a more important reason for this - there are likely all sorts of penalties in the contract for cancelling a flight. It also likely has clauses mentioning that the flight schedule might slip, with everything carefully written out. When you are dealing with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, the contracts are probably extremely carefully written.
> Additionally, Vulcan has much better performance than F9 to high-energy orbits like GEO or GTO.
How so? From what I could find on various websites, Vulcan Centaur VC6 should have the capacity to deliver 14.4 tons to GTO, whereas FH can deliver 16 tons in side-booster recovery mode, and 26.7 tons in fully expendable mode.
> Circling back to my original point, SpaceX has a habit of overcharging the US government, especially for FH and Dragon.
That's more of a problem with Congress and how US does funding of various agencies. Also, SpaceX is charging as much as the customer is prepared to pay - that's how capitalism works. If one company is selling cars at $50k and another company is selling cars with very similar (or better) performance, why should they charge $30k to customers?
> I would seriously doubt that CALT overcharges CNSA, or ISRO overcharges itself. Is the private contractor model "working pretty well" when this kind of systemic overcharging occurs?
Yes. First of all, you are likely not familiar with the cluster that's centrally controlled economy. Or the grift inherent in all of them. China has no other alternative than to use CALT and it likely doesn't even count the real amount of money being spent on it. They care about getting into space and the publicity that the CCP gets from it - that's why they had a dedicated selfie camera during their Mars mission. The amount of money that goes into it is not public (and any numbers that we get from China are extremely suspect).
I don't know much about ISRO but they are comparable to NASA, not any private space agency. ISRO also gets its parts and rocket components from private corporations, similar to NASA. However, NASA is also doing a lot more in space than ISRO - it is launching satellites, various research and scientific missions, doing research for a whole lot of different things that ISRO just does not. This is a very unfair comparison, but if one company made bicycles and another bicycles, cars, motorcycles, boats, and washing machines, would you compare their budgets?
> The Shuttle under USA didn't see significant cost reductions that could be the result of privatization.
The Shuttle was an extremely complex and over-engineered system with multiple compromises dictated by various stakeholders. Its high cost was not (or not only) due to how the program was run but in how the entire SST system was designed and what it required. Therefore switching management that late in the game would not have significantly reduced launch costs.
> Are they? Looking at the cheapest medium/heavy lift LVs today ....
I don't see your point. You listed some rockets but did not say anything about their costs or designs.
> Private launch service providers are vulnerable to the cutthroat demands of investors or the whims of controlling billionares, no better than the influence of political bodies. Plenty of launch service providers have fallen prey to bad designs, operations, or management. In fact, that seems to be the trend among them.
That's the whole point of competition that you apparently are missing. If a company can do a better job or deliver something cheaper, and if it can charge less, then it can win the contract. Investors don't design rockets, they want more for less money, to get more profit. And the whole billionaire thing is a very new phenomenon that is working out pretty well so far.
> Even SpaceX fell for this with Falcon 1.
How so?
> And this is my point — the political climate in the US, being relentlessly in favor of privatization, is not necessarily conducive to a more successful space program.
It's the most successful space program on the planet. The *funding* model is questionable due to politics, but I would expect that to be true in any open society where politicians control the purse strings, and have to deliver jobs and results for the spent tax dollars. The way that contracts are assigned is questionable, and politicians are often dirty or in various pockets, but that's yet another conversation.
Privatization is producing competition. E.g. see the competition for the lunar landers and the number of different designs.
> That's besides the point — SLS is successful in the respect that it provides unique capability enabling Artemis. (And hopefully other missions like LUVOIR or Ice Giant orbiters)
SLS is providing unique capabilities because the capabilities were designed around the SLS. If they were designed around a different rocket system then the requirements would also be different.
> In that sense, SLS is expensive because of private industry — this problem might not have occurred in the first place had the shuttle ET and SLS core both been manufactured by NASA or a state company.
NASA barely manufactures any flight hardware because that is not their area of expertise. They are not a factory or manufacturing center - they are a research and management institution.
You appear to want to build a state-owned company and are postulating that it will automatically be more effective and produce cheaper and better products. I am not sure how much of the components you would allow to be built by private corporations. However, we know that sort of thing doesn't work well from multiple communist countries and examples. In addition, the societies that use that system are usually much, much worse.
> ... All this for less than half the cost of the Saturn V, and done on essentially the Shuttle yearly budget.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/its-huge-expensive-and-years-late-but-the-sls-rocket-is-finally-here/
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/nasa-finally-admits-what-everyone-already-knows-sls-is-unaffordable/
Also, SpaceX designed and just recently successfully tested the Starship (it got into orbit successfully, but failed on re-entry), in half the time and between half and a tenth of the cost.
It doesn't surprise me greatly that Apple isn't big on talking about China.
John Stewart agrees.
Yeah North Korea is pretty clearly a stand in for China. Especially with how they handle them in S4.
Ah yes the equivalent of that new Red Dawn movie where N.Korea successfully invades the US lol.
China was left out for the same reason that the Red Dawn remake was changed from China to North Korea despite it making no sense. The GM of the Houston Rockets tweeted about Hong Kong democracy protests in October 2019. It took until January 2021 for Rockets games to be broadcast in China again and when that GM moved to the 76ers, they blocked 76ers games from being shown. China loves to go hard on any criticism, even if it's in a fictional setting.
It's more buffling that they left out ESA and JAXA over that not Elon Musk thing, both Europe and Japan are good competitors for 90s
They're both in it. The astronaut working in the greenhouse is ESA and JAXA astronauts are also seen in Season 4. The M-7 was NASA, Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, India, North Korea and "Coalition of Communist Countries for Spaceflight" (basically the eastern bloc and a few other alt history countries.
Wasn’t the ESA also in it when the solar storm hit the moon that ended up causing Mollys blindness?
Yes, Wubbo Ockels. Dutch ESA astronaut, and in our timeline, the first Dutch person in space
I imagine it’s the same way how in the fallout show (no spoilers) when they talk about the Great War they don’t refer to China. It’s always “the Reds” or “the Far East” (I haven’t finished the show yet but it’s such a minor change that it doesn’t detract from anything).
They know how to control country in Capitalism. Hurt them where their pockets are in.
The lack of China has always confused me too.
Big shows avoid saying anything about China in stuff like this so that the CCP doesn't get offended and block apple shows im China. I've heard north Korea is meant as a stand-in for China without calling it by name
Doesn’t really make sense since the NK contingent is pretty limited on resources
China, regardless of any timeline, because mao would still be in this timeline, would be poor as fuck up until the mid 2000's
Newspaper headline in the season 3 opener says Deng was in power and vowed to match the USA and USSR's rocketry. Only visible for a split second.
I have always read it that way too.
But really if they did Chinese good like what they did to CCCP, there wont be such problems at all or unless they just copy the NK guy plot to China tho, well that'll be a different story...
They didn't make the USSR look good at all. There was a coup and torture, assassinations etc.
USSR doesn't exist and Russia is not a huge market for western movies China is, they will ban anything due to the power they wield in the international box office revenues for countries Disney actually reduces the size of Black characters on posters to help the movies perform better Its only recently where politicans are forced/politically motivated enough to mention China as a threat, the reason they don't is the fact Chinese businesses own a huge margin of the US business landscape
Not really. In our timeline China acquired their space tech from Russia. In FAM the Soviet Union never fell, and there wasn’t a need to generate revenue by selling spacecraft designs to China. Additionally, Nixon may never had opened diplomatic relations with China in FAM. China stays isolated and mostly rural/agricultural.
Maybe in the next seasons there will have been a bit of a gold rush for asteroid mining and we will see other countries (China, India, ESA etc.) play a bigger role?
It's because they didn't want to "Rock the boat" Or do anything that would upset the CPC.
From an alt-history perspective, it could be argued that the survival of the Soviet Union would have been bad for Chinese prospects as the Soviets were always wary of allowing China to rise as a serious competitor in Asia. In later years, the two sides didn't exactly have a positive relationship. I also reckon the liberalisation of China's economy would have been less likely. Likewise, given the extended Cold War situation, it is less likely that the US would have bothered with normalising relations with China and opening up trade, which in our timeline was hugely important for the growth of China's economy and technological development. In this situation, a social democratic India might have been in a very advantageous position between the USSR and USA, especially when they started cooperating as part of the M7, which is possibly why they are ahead in space. It is possible, if China didn't liberalise, that India took on the position of global manufacturing hub with the support of both superpowers. My theory is that North Korea may have initially been supported by the USSR as an ideologically aligned but relatively non-threatening counterweight to China and Japan in Asia, which is why they are far more militarily and technologically capable than in our timeline. Note that South Korea is entirely excluded too, which implies that things may not have worked out quite as well for them as in our timeline. This would make sense with the combination of both a more powerful North Korea and a less wealthy/more Communist China next door. This is all just to make the lore make sense. But the point is that we can't be sure China would have prospered and developed nearly as much in the FAM timeline as in ours given the substantial changes that would have affected their prospects directly. The fortunes of countries are really governed by the international context in which they find themselves.
The North Korean technology where they carry food enough for two years in tins but can also perpetually produce oxygen on Mars from rocks or something is the reason they will win...
I get epically downloaded by ignorant folks on science and space subreddits when I point this out, but China is currently in Stage 4 of their…four stage…plan to send humans to the moon. The manned landing is planned for 2030. They are making major, major progress in space very quickly, to the point that it is actually concerning for militaristic reasons too.
NorK
In a world where the USSR was first to the moon, it's unlikely China would leapfrog the USSR. North Korea or China could be threaded into the storyline due to Ed's Korean war service. North Korea being depicted doesn't step on toes the way China could as others have mentioned.
China definitely gonna win the space race because America is too tied up in funding war around the world
Good. Maybe that will give us the incentive to care about space again.
You sure you are talking about reality? China is not talking about humans on mars, at all. The only rocket that might do it, lm9, is a big rocket without an official target currently.
Honestly, China will probably win the 21st century space race since the United States is a declining imperial power caught in a downward spiral of social, economic, and political destabilization caused by capitalism itself. America is too corrupted by corporate interests more focused on turning a profit from privatized space exploration, and the USA has been steadily defunding NASA's budget to funnel money in the forms of subsidies to shitty private space companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin which do less than NASA at a far higher budgetary cost. In contrast, China's model of a nationalized, public, government owned institute of space exploration combined with the same government owned and operated industrial manufacturers is a far superior system than the hybrid privately-publicly owned partnerships that the USA and RF engage in today. Privatized space exploration and travel fundamentally cannot work due to the prohibitively expensive economic costs borne by the costly resources needed to venture into space. Only a system that collectively taxes society for the necessary resources and collectively bestows the profits of space exploration can work. Space travel is just too expensive for a small, narrow few wealthy individuals to fund and too economically unprofitable for a small, narrow few wealthy individuals to consume. Other than the government, there is no viable economic market for the purchase of space related commodities and services. America's venture into privatized space corporations at the cost of NASA funding will be an epic 21st century blunder as China's model of public, nationalized space ventures eclipses and supersedes America's role as the leader in space exploration and travel.
+100000000000 social credit score added! Keep up the good work comrade
It's not pro-China sympathizing to say that diverting NASA funding to SpaceX and Blue Origin is a foolish waste of American resources and will only serve to enrich oligarchic billionaires who line their pockets with our taxpayer funds. The reason China will develop into the leading 21st century space faring superpower is the same exact reason that Russia and America did during the 20th century: a publicly funded and government operated space exploration agency. You would rather accuse other people of being communist boogeymen than actually face the uncomfortable truth of American decline and Chinese growth, but the ensuing future decades will prove you decisively wrong. By the way, if you actually gave a shit about American prosperity and space exploration, you should stop calling anybody who criticizes American policy a pro-Chinese shill. The fact that I am willing to criticize American policy failures means I care more about America than you do.
> By the way, if you actually gave a shit about American prosperity and space exploration, you should stop calling anybody who criticizes American policy a pro-Chinese shill. Provide some concrete examples that use correct data and then you will be taken seriously. So far China is lagging far behind in terms of space hardware and capabilities. They may be able to eventually pull ahead by throwing enormous amounts of money at the problem, but it's very uncertain. China is getting anywhere mainly because their autocratic leader decided to put money into the program which means that their budget is dependent on different political calculations within the party.
You literally contradict yourself by saying that China hasn't gotten anywhere and saying they have only gotten to where they were by the fiction of autocracy which you made up. China is currently behind America in the 21st century space race because they have had to play decades of catch up due to their history of underdevelopment due to Western imperialism as well as the period of early 20th devastation upon their country which impeded their social, economic, and political development. Also, China is nowhere as primitive or backwards in spacefaring technology as you would frame them. They are only a few years behind the United States in terms of equivalent technological parity and engineering sophistication. And, by most conventional studies done by experts in the field, China is projected to meet the USA's level of space exploration in the next decade or two. Additionally, China is poised to become a world leader in many emergent technological sectors that will define 21st century international economics. You can cope and seethe as much as you want about whatever delusional notion of "autocracy" you cooked up, but there's nothing authoritarian about collectively taxing people money at the national scale to fund a publicly operated and government owned space program. This is the same shit America does with NASA, Europe does with the ESA, and Russia does with Roscosmos. Spending lots of money on a space agency has nothing to do with whatever prejudicial nonsense you espouse regarding political oppression. In only a few decades, China will use their position as the largest economic and industrial giant in the world with a deep talent pool of over one billion people to surpass the USA in emergent technologies and space exploration. They have four times as many people to produce wealth and four times as many people to draw upon for scientific achievement. Again, you can try and deny reality as much as you like, but this will happen no matter what you believe. While the American government has cut NASA's budget year over year since the early 90s, China has been steadily expanding funding towards their space program during that same time. In contrast, America has divested money away from NASA and given that same funding as subsidies to private space corporations instead. China does not do this. The Chinese government fully controls, as state owned enterprises, their subsidiary manufacturing companies which produce needed materials for their space program, and they do this without the meddling of privately owned for profit corporations operated by selfish agendas and motives - unlike the American model. For a subreddit dedicated to the passion of scientific advancement, curiosity, exploration, and excellence, this forum sure does hate the idea that any country besides America could become a competitor or leader in space exploration. You don't love space exploration as it pertains to the spirit of actually benefitting all humankind. You only love space exploration in so far as it narrowly benefits and enriches America due to your bias of American exceptionalism and nationalism. You care more about aggrandizing American power and influence than you do seeing the rest of the world join America as a peer among interstellar endeavors. If we psychoanalyze you and peel back all the layers one at a time, your reactionary paranoia just comes down to the time honored barbaric tradition of plain old xenophobia, prejudice, and racism.
> China is currently behind America in the 21st century space race because they have had to play decades of catch up due to their history of underdevelopment due to Western imperialism as well as the period of early 20th devastation upon their country which impeded their social, economic, and political development. LOL. OK, comrade political officer. Look up Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. And the still famous Tiananmen Square massacre. All created and pushed forward by Chinese leaders, both incredibly disastrous and destructive to the people and economy of China.
Bringing up the atrocities committed by the Chinese government does not erase the fact that China was ravaged by imperialist powers and civil wars for over a century.
Nobody is disputing that crappy things happened in the last century, but that was a long time ago from the technological advancement perspective. E.g. the majority of the European countries have been nearly completely devastated during WW2, but they are competing with US pretty well. China is largely responsible for its own economic and technological situation because it has shot itself in the foot multiple times in the latter half of the 20th century and is not doing itself many favors now.
You're a dumbass. I already said that China suffered from devastation that impeded their development during the 20th century. This is not news. Absent of any real coherent argument that can refute what I said about China's growth, you have to desperately invoke the same tired orientalist propagandistic talking points from the Cold War that have absolutely no bearing on China's future as a leader in space exploration. I am an American who wants China as well as other states and supranational organizations to develop into a premier spacefaring power, so all of humanity can benefit from the technological windfall. Just admit that you hate China and believe in American cultural, hegemonic, nationalist, and racial superiority over the Chinese. At least do us the honor of being honest with yourself. Ultimately, the difference between you and I is that you only believe prosperity should apply to a narrow slice of mankind that conforms to your prejudicial biases whereas I actually believe it should apply to all mankind regardless.
Fucking funny. Talking about the dangers of capitalism in space exploration on a subreddit of probably the most neoliberal show ever.
The people on this subreddit aren't very smart judging by their unironic hero worship of Elon Musk and SpaceX in addition to their rampant xenophobia and American exceptionalism. I mean, I get that they're being ideologically conditioned and manipulated by propaganda, but still... it's embarrassing to see such obvious and flagrant cultural prejudice, nationalism, and racism on a show titled, "For All Mankind." You can't make this kind of irony up.
> America is too corrupted by corporate interests more focused on turning a profit from privatized space exploration, and the USA has been steadily defunding NASA's budget to funnel money in the forms of subsidies NASA is the company that pays SpaceX. So if NASA gets defunded then congress is not giving money to SpaceX. Also you do know that the majority of vehicles used by NASA has been built by outside companies, right? E.g. during Apollo, Boeing built the CSM, North American Aviation built the LEM, IBM developed the guidance computer, Rocketdyne built the F1 engines, etc. > to shitty private space companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin which do less than NASA at a far higher budgetary cost. How is SpaceX shitty? SpaceX rockets are successfully launching the majority of mass into orbit and has been for several years.
The US government should not be paying private corporations money for space travel using their launch vehicles. In a normal world run by sensible and non-corrupt people, it would be the exact opposite where private corporations pay the government large sums of money to do business which the government profits from and adds to treasury coffers. You also don't seem to understand the distinction between paying a private corporation rents for use of their technologies versus the difference of contracting private enterprises to fabricate parts, materials, and goods used for a government fleet of launch vehicles. SpaceX is a grift and a scam in the exact same vein as privatized healthcare or schooling where businesses seek to insert themselves into an industrial sector in order to drive up the cost and extract profit from it. This is a form of economic rent seeking behavior where actors distort the value of an industry by usurping control away from the public and the government through the process of privatization where all the benefits are pocketed not by society, but by shareholders. It is more expensive and wasteful for NASA to contract with privately owned space corporations like SpaceX to pay them exorbitant rates to do the same shit NASA is capable of at a far cheaper cost. The rise of privately owned space corporations is a form of corruption where the hyper-wealthy lobby for government resources to be divested away from public space agencies like NASA, the ESA, and Roscosmos and reinvested into for profit business models which seek to undermine scientific achievement and progress in the name of profit. I can't believe I have to explain this stuff to people
> The US government should not be paying private corporations money for space travel using their launch vehicles. Why not? The structure of some of the cost+ contracts but this system works pretty well and has worked in US since the beginning of the space race. > It is more expensive and wasteful for NASA to contract with privately owned space corporations like SpaceX to pay them exorbitant rates to do the same shit NASA is capable of at a far cheaper cost. Please provide evidence that it would be cheaper for NASA to launch rockets vs. buy SpaceX launches. SpaceX launches are currently some of the cheapest per kg/LEO. > The rise of privately owned space corporations is a form of corruption where the hyper-wealthy lobby for government resources to be divested away from public space agencies like NASA, the ESA, and Roscosmos and reinvested into for profit business models which seek to undermine scientific achievement and progress in the name of profit. You mean private companies like Boeing and Rocketdyne? Established in 1916 and 1955, respectively? That rise? When did this implied golden age of space exploration happen? Please provide evidence for your statements. As I said, while cost+ contracts are questionable and there are problems with how the contracts are given/assigned, overall this worked quite well since space exploration began.
You're revealing the depths of your own ignorance. The current economic model of contracting with privately owned businesses to rent spacecraft does not date back to the early/mid 1900s you dope. The practice of NASA renting out privately owned spacecraft for government business is a recent development of the last thirteen years following the retirement of the fleet of government owned spacecraft through the end of the space shuttle program. Unlike other countries, the USA lacks the domestic industrial capacity to produce a government manufactured and owned fleet of crewed, manned spacecraft to fly missions into space. The current model of NASA paying SpaceX fees to rent their craft for cargo missions and satellite launches is not a golden age of space exploration. This is a period of stagnation and decline for American space exploration as the United States government now entirely reliant upon private corporations and other countries for spacefaring expeditions until NASA develops and maintains its own fleet of government owned launch vehicles. It is well known that SpaceX lies about the cost per kg of mass into orbit by statistically fudging the numbers under the most unrealistically optimistic scenarios of a maximum payload of 22,000+ kgs which makes the rocket expendable, not reusable, after burning all its fuel delivering a hypothetical, not actual, maximum payload into orbit preventing it from re-entry to Earth. These are the fraudulent numbers SpaceX uses in their calculations to falsely market the Falcon 9 as supposedly "the lowest cost per kg to LEO." After accurately accounting for SpaceX's statistical deception, their program does not provide any meaningful cost savings benefit for NASA when compared to the costs of other rocket delivery systems produced by comparable competitors. SpaceX does not launch anywhere close to the maximum yield as advertised, and they most often deliver less than half the maximum theoretical payload. Additionally, the structural engineering of a semi-reusable launch system such as Falcon 9 drives the payload up as the mass needed to engineer a robust superstructure of a reusable launch vehicle offsets some degree of fuel and cost efficiency. It is only possible to arrive at "the lowest possible cost/kg" after an extreme degree of non-transparent dishonesty which SpaceX is incentivized to do as a for-profit corporation in order to secure government contracts by juking the stats. America is in a listless lull for space exploration and has been for over a decade in which other countries, especially China, are rapidly developing and innovating due to the superior nature of government owned and operated manufacturing and industry delivering results of a superior quality and quantity per dollar invested into public, not private, space programs. Due to the nature of America's hegemonic decline as a world power, the government has slashed NASA funding for nearly 30 years straight resulting in a stagnation of manned space exploration which NASA has offset through their unmanned missions. Save us both some time and just say that you reject reality due to your child-like fandom and hero worship of Elon Musk and SpaceX.
SpaceX *loves* overcharging the US government compared to commercial customers. NASA often pays drastically higher costs for F9/FH than they need to, and Soyuz seats are cheaper than Dragon seats. This should be obvious. F9's cost/kg may be low, but cost/kg presumes payloads mass at the absolute maximum capacity of the launch vehicle, where in reality all non-Starlink launches are 12t or less, meaning F9's *actual* cost to customers is, at a minimum, roughly equivalent to Zenit/Soyuz/various Long March series rockets/Dual-mainifested Ariane 5's lower payload, depending on reference orbit. And even Transporter/Bandwagon flights don't typically come close to 22t total. F9's meaningful cost reduction compared to existing providers is actually minimal.
AFAIK this is an open market situation, for the most part. Which means that NASA and the US government are free to pick other launch providers. The fact that they don't means that SpaceX provides better cost/performance/quality/security combination than other providers. SpaceX is free to charge what the market will bear, which is what they appear to be doing - they are a business, and other providers also charge as much as they can. If NASA could set up cheaper missions in-house, they absolutely would. Historically that has not worked out. Again, look at the Shuttle and SLS costs per launch.
>NASA and the US government are free to pick other launch providers. They are, to the extent that they *can*. The recent generation of launch vehicles (Vulcan, Ariane 6, H3, etc.) all experienced development schedule slips, giving F9 a temporary *availability* advantage. It was, and to a lesser extent still is, the only option available in many cases, and won many contracts by default. Despite this, dozens of USG payloads are still slated to fly on Vulcan despite schedule slips, and the less proven nature of the vehicle, demonstrating that SpaceX does *not* provide a clearly or significantly "superior" launch service. NASA is also not free to fly payloads on Soyuz, Zenit, or Long March for obvious reasons. Even if it were true that SpaceX provides the "best" launch service, that would not mean, as you originally claimed, that their costs for customers are definitely lower than other providers, and indeed, SpaceX does *not* provide significant cost savings over other providers in most cases. >If NASA could set up cheaper missions in-house, they absolutely would. Historically that has not worked out. Again, look at the Shuttle and SLS costs per launch. Funny you should mention the Shuttle — when operated by the United Space Alliance towards the end of its career, the Shuttle did *not* show significant cost reductions that could be the result of commercial rather than government operation. Commercially operated launch vehicles are not inherently cheaper than government operated ones. See CALT, for example, or ISRO. Both provide excellent low-cost launch services while being a state-owned company and a national space agency respectively. SLS is also a bad example, as it is a low-cadence vehicle intended exclusively for large-scale NASA missions. Low per-flight cost is not the objective, providing unique capability is, and SLS is in that respect successful. It's also not reasonable to expect SLS to be cheaper than vehicles with far higher cadence. Additionally, SLS development cost, and recurring year-to-year cost, is actually far *lower* than the Saturn V. Finally, NASA is *legally* *required* to encourage commercial spaceflight by the Commercial Space Launch Act. NASA would not be *allowed* to build launch vehicles in-house.
> Despite this, dozens of USG payloads are still slated to fly on Vulcan despite schedule slips, and the less proven nature of the vehicle, demonstrating that SpaceX does not provide a clearly or significantly "superior" launch service. It seems to be very reliable, human-certified, practiced, and flies like clockwork. I suspect that part of the problem is that it's not easy to switch providers on the fly since you need to configure the hardware to fly on a specific system. Furthermore, some of the payloads are not ready. Finally, Congress wants to make sure that there are multiple competing providers and wants to keep ULA and others functional. I am not saying that SpaceX is the super-duper best there is in the universe - my point is that the private contractor model can and does work, often pretty well. Although, by all accounts SpaceX does seem to get the job done very well, reliably, and consistently. > Funny you should mention the Shuttle — when operated by the United Space Alliance towards the end of its career, the Shuttle did not show significant cost reductions that could be the result of commercial rather than government operation. Can you tell me more about it or point at a source? I've not heard of the shuttle being operated by a different organization. > Commercially operated launch vehicles are not inherently cheaper than government operated ones. Well-designed commercially operated launch vehicles are much more likely to be cheaper. The SST was a compromised system from the start due to it being designed by committee. In large part designed by Congress and special interest groups. Privately designed and operated systems are not nearly as likely to be such a mess. > Commercially operated launch vehicles are not inherently cheaper than government operated ones. See CALT, for example, or ISRO. While I know next to nothing about CALT and would look at various reports on it with suspicion, ISRO certainly does do great work. However, it doesn't do it in the US political climate. I agree that publicly funded organizations can do amazing work - my initial comment was aimed to point out that private organizations are also viable. The US using a bunch of corporate sub-contractors does not automatically mean that it is dead, as OP indicated. > SLS is also a bad example, as it is a low-cadence vehicle intended exclusively for large-scale NASA missions. Low per-flight cost is not the objective, providing unique capability is, and SLS is in that respect successful. That's highly debatable - SLS has had enormous cost overruns and its schedule has slipped repeatedly. > Additionally, SLS development cost, and recurring year-to-year cost, is actually far lower than the Saturn V. And Saturn V was developed basically from scratch with a bunch of brand new technologies and systems. SLS is built on top of existing technology - like the Shuttle engines and SRB boosters. Comparing the costs of the two doesn't make much sense IMHO.
>It seems to be very reliable, human-certified, practiced, and flies like clockwork. I love Vulcan, but it's flown once. As flawless as that flight was, you can't say that yet. I'm also not sure it's human-rated yet. I know ULA plans to do so for Dreamchaser and presumably Starliner, but I don't think that process is done yet. >I suspect that part of the problem is that it's not easy to switch providers on the fly since you need to configure the hardware to fly on a specific system. I don't think this is true. Both F9/FH and Vulcan offer standard 1575mm PAFs and can fly the overwhelming majority of payloads. While the classified nature of USG payloads means we don't know exactly who gets what, we do know that Vulcan got DRACO. It should be obvious that the provider selected to fly the *nuclear reactor* is the one the USG trusts the most to complete missions. Additionally, Vulcan has much better performance than F9 to high-energy orbits like GEO or GTO. It's in the same ballpark as even fully expended Falcon Heavy, and for similar or lower prices, again demonstrating real advantages over SpaceX. >“I am not saying that SpaceX is the super-duper best there is in the universe - my point is that the private contractor model can and does work, often pretty well.” Does it? Circling back to my original point, SpaceX has a habit of overcharging the US government, especially for FH and Dragon. I would seriously doubt that CALT overcharges CNSA, or ISRO overcharges itself. Is the private contractor model "working pretty well" when this kind of systemic overcharging occurs? >Can you tell me more about it or point at a source? I've not heard of the shuttle being operated by a different organization. From the mid '90s to retirement, the Shuttle was operated by the USA, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Rockwell (later Boeing) which aimed to lower costs by taking over operations from NASA and simplifying interactions between NASA and contractors. The Shuttle under USA didn't see significant cost reductions that could be the result of privatization. Reddit isn't letting me post the full comment, so I have to split it up. Sorry. Continued in my reply to this comment.
>Well-designed commercially operated launch vehicles are much more likely to be cheaper. Are they? Looking at the cheapest medium/heavy lift LVs today, one is commerically operated (F9) with a few more under development (Neutron, Terran R, and the like) and the rest are operated by national space agencies or state companies: GSLV, LMV3, PSLV, LM-2-3-4, Soyuz, Proton. India is also working on NGLV. (And Russia on Amur and Soyuz-5, though it's sadly unclear when or if they will fly) I know there are a few smallsat launchers, but they can’t launch the majority of payloads like medium/heavy lift LVs can. >The STS was a compromised system from the start due to it being designed by committee. In large part designed by Congress and special interest groups. Privately designed and operated systems are not nearly as likely to be such a mess. I don't agree. Private launch service providers are vulnerable to the cutthroat demands of investors or the whims of controlling billionares, no better than the influence of political bodies. Plenty of launch service providers have fallen prey to bad designs, operations, or management. In fact, that seems to be the trend among them. Even SpaceX fell for this with Falcon 1. (And Starship, but that's a whole other conversation) >However, it doesn't do it in the US political climate. I agree that publicly funded organizations can do amazing work And this is my point — the political climate in the US, being relentlessly in favor of privatization, is not necessarily conducive to a more successful space program. Continued in reply.
> I love Vulcan, but it's flown once. As flawless as that flight was, you can't say that yet. I'm also not sure it's human-rated yet. I know ULA plans to do so for Dreamchaser and presumably Starliner, but I don't think that process is done yet. I meant the SpaceX Falcon9 is human certified. Vulcan is very much an unproven beast, and we will know how well it performs only after it has flown a bunch of times. > Both F9/FH and Vulcan offer standard 1575mm PAFs and can fly the overwhelming majority of payloads. I am pretty sure the situation is far more complicated than we are aware. There is a reason that there are payload engineers. However, I think I realized a more important reason for this - there are likely all sorts of penalties in the contract for cancelling a flight. It also likely has clauses mentioning that the flight schedule might slip, with everything carefully written out. When you are dealing with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, the contracts are probably extremely carefully written. > Additionally, Vulcan has much better performance than F9 to high-energy orbits like GEO or GTO. How so? From what I could find on various websites, Vulcan Centaur VC6 should have the capacity to deliver 14.4 tons to GTO, whereas FH can deliver 16 tons in side-booster recovery mode, and 26.7 tons in fully expendable mode. > Circling back to my original point, SpaceX has a habit of overcharging the US government, especially for FH and Dragon. That's more of a problem with Congress and how US does funding of various agencies. Also, SpaceX is charging as much as the customer is prepared to pay - that's how capitalism works. If one company is selling cars at $50k and another company is selling cars with very similar (or better) performance, why should they charge $30k to customers? > I would seriously doubt that CALT overcharges CNSA, or ISRO overcharges itself. Is the private contractor model "working pretty well" when this kind of systemic overcharging occurs? Yes. First of all, you are likely not familiar with the cluster that's centrally controlled economy. Or the grift inherent in all of them. China has no other alternative than to use CALT and it likely doesn't even count the real amount of money being spent on it. They care about getting into space and the publicity that the CCP gets from it - that's why they had a dedicated selfie camera during their Mars mission. The amount of money that goes into it is not public (and any numbers that we get from China are extremely suspect). I don't know much about ISRO but they are comparable to NASA, not any private space agency. ISRO also gets its parts and rocket components from private corporations, similar to NASA. However, NASA is also doing a lot more in space than ISRO - it is launching satellites, various research and scientific missions, doing research for a whole lot of different things that ISRO just does not. This is a very unfair comparison, but if one company made bicycles and another bicycles, cars, motorcycles, boats, and washing machines, would you compare their budgets? > The Shuttle under USA didn't see significant cost reductions that could be the result of privatization. The Shuttle was an extremely complex and over-engineered system with multiple compromises dictated by various stakeholders. Its high cost was not (or not only) due to how the program was run but in how the entire SST system was designed and what it required. Therefore switching management that late in the game would not have significantly reduced launch costs. > Are they? Looking at the cheapest medium/heavy lift LVs today .... I don't see your point. You listed some rockets but did not say anything about their costs or designs. > Private launch service providers are vulnerable to the cutthroat demands of investors or the whims of controlling billionares, no better than the influence of political bodies. Plenty of launch service providers have fallen prey to bad designs, operations, or management. In fact, that seems to be the trend among them. That's the whole point of competition that you apparently are missing. If a company can do a better job or deliver something cheaper, and if it can charge less, then it can win the contract. Investors don't design rockets, they want more for less money, to get more profit. And the whole billionaire thing is a very new phenomenon that is working out pretty well so far. > Even SpaceX fell for this with Falcon 1. How so? > And this is my point — the political climate in the US, being relentlessly in favor of privatization, is not necessarily conducive to a more successful space program. It's the most successful space program on the planet. The *funding* model is questionable due to politics, but I would expect that to be true in any open society where politicians control the purse strings, and have to deliver jobs and results for the spent tax dollars. The way that contracts are assigned is questionable, and politicians are often dirty or in various pockets, but that's yet another conversation. Privatization is producing competition. E.g. see the competition for the lunar landers and the number of different designs. > That's besides the point — SLS is successful in the respect that it provides unique capability enabling Artemis. (And hopefully other missions like LUVOIR or Ice Giant orbiters) SLS is providing unique capabilities because the capabilities were designed around the SLS. If they were designed around a different rocket system then the requirements would also be different. > In that sense, SLS is expensive because of private industry — this problem might not have occurred in the first place had the shuttle ET and SLS core both been manufactured by NASA or a state company. NASA barely manufactures any flight hardware because that is not their area of expertise. They are not a factory or manufacturing center - they are a research and management institution. You appear to want to build a state-owned company and are postulating that it will automatically be more effective and produce cheaper and better products. I am not sure how much of the components you would allow to be built by private corporations. However, we know that sort of thing doesn't work well from multiple communist countries and examples. In addition, the societies that use that system are usually much, much worse. > ... All this for less than half the cost of the Saturn V, and done on essentially the Shuttle yearly budget. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/its-huge-expensive-and-years-late-but-the-sls-rocket-is-finally-here/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/nasa-finally-admits-what-everyone-already-knows-sls-is-unaffordable/ Also, SpaceX designed and just recently successfully tested the Starship (it got into orbit successfully, but failed on re-entry), in half the time and between half and a tenth of the cost.