That's what I say at National Review today.

Oh, and if Jim Oberg reads it, I didn't mean to plagiarize you. The blockquotes around the two grafs from your article seem to have been lost in editing. It will hopefully be fixed shortly.

[Update in the afternoon]

Mark Whittington has some comments. I find them unconvincing, but your mileage may differ. I will note, though, that the V-2 never had the accuracy necessary to make it an effective military weapon for the purpose he describes.

I think you may run a small risk of falling into the trap you accuse others of by constant use of "China can do what we could X years ago" or "China will be where we were X years ago."

In terms of ability and infrastructure we aren't much further on than we were in the 70's. (discounting the current shuttle as an evolutionary dead end)

I suspect China will quickly get through the 60's and be up with the rest of us in the 1970's. I remain highly agnostic on the potential for private space enterprises getting people actually into orbit any time soon, which means within 5 years China will potentially be exactly where the US/Russia are.

I don't see that as much of a threat as I concur that making the mistake that they made isn't all that sensible a course of action. But I do think to use the above argument is flawed.

I wonder, Rand, if you would cite a specific example of someone who wants to "redo Apollo" in reaction to the Chinese space challenge. As you know, I specifically noted that Apollo was not the appropriate model for a new space race.

If you can't offer a specific example, perhapsit would behoove you to take back the jibe that consists of the first two or three paragraphs of your piece.

Chris Vancil, of the Mars Society, for one. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

Not going into space because we're arguing about how to design the spaceship is like not going to Tahiti because we're arguing about what the boat should look like.

It's the getting there that counts, not how you got there.

"The two traditional motivating factors behind human endeavors have been fear and greed."

Somewhere, in this article lies assertion that Chinese arent there for greed. I would not bet a future on such assertion.

Ill just paste my comment to this excerpt from rocketmanblog @ http://www.rocketmanblog.com/2003/10/chinas_first_hu.html

"Today, the only thing the Chinese proved was that they could build a capsule capable of supporting humans in space, which is not a groundbreaking accomplishment.
While this might be a big sociological feat for the Chinese, it is not a big technological feat."

Dont forget, that the current US estimates for designing and building such a capsule, to be launched on existing launch vehicles amount to at least 7 years and 10+ Billion dollars. So, it is a friggin groundbreaking ( or, heavensbreaking ) accomplishment.

P.S. I know, OSP is supposed to be reuseable and Shenzou capsule is not, but with 10+B development cost and 150+M per launch cost ( ELV launch cost rough estimate ) who really cares if you need to do or do not rebuild the sucker every time ?

Just because NASA insists on slowly designing and building K Cars and Pintos doesn't mean that the Chinese customized Corvair is superior.

No "Red Space Menace...oh dear, that will be quite disappointing to these guys.

Perhaps, in isolation, the Chinese space program may indeed be little threat. The problem arises, however, with the missle development expertise they will develop and European efforts to partner with them in the Galileo positioning system (a planned competitor for the US GPS system).

With better missles and their own space-based navigation system, it looks a little more ominous.

Rand - While I find Zubrin's Mars Direct proposal, which I guess is what you're talking about, to have quite a bit wrong with it, I don't think it counts as "redoing Apollo." Zubrin at least is aware that Mars is not a single point, flag and footsteps goal.

So, again, give me a specific example or withdraw the jibe.

Mark, nowhere did I say in that article "redo Apollo." I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase, so there's no way to tell if you're right or wrong.

What I said was that some are hoping that this will be an excuse for a new space race, and I believe that that's not the case, and that if it were, it would be a bad thing, because we'd be doing it for dumb reasons that have nothing to do with space, just as we did in the sixties. And as Henry Spencer pointed out at sci.space.policy, the problem with races is what happens at the end of them--people quit running.

Rand - Gee, your first two paragraphs are nothing but one long jibe about Apollo that has no relationship with what people are proposing.

By the way, Henry's statement was cute and does point out the problem with the Apollo era race. But I'm not sure anyone proposes and end to the new race or any time when one "stops running."

Mark, you can call it "Apollo" (note that the word doesn't actually appear in the first two paragraphs), or glory days of NASA, or whatever. Are you really claiming that there is no one who wants to see this happen?

As I said, if the shoe fits, wear it, and if not, stop complaining.

There is a sense of excitement at the Chinese accomplishment, but I think people have had time to consider the negatives of another 'space race.' NASA seems more inclined to write reports (which might be a good thing if they weren't so costly) than produce a launch vehicle. While the private sector is underfunded.

Assuming the Chinese continue to move ahead and NASA continues to lag in the next few years, which certainly would get some congressional attention, could some NASA funds somehow be directed to commercial ventures? Any suggestions on how to make it so?

As I just mentioned over on Chris Hall's blog (and I'll repeat here), something worth considering are these estimates of the Chinese program running at ~$2 billion/year. I don't know the exact percentage, but a fairly good chunk of the US manned space program is taken up by peoples' salaries. Not a problem for the Chinese. Given their command economy, I expect that the oft-quoted figure may be buying the Chinese a more robust program than many are willing to give them credit for.

Yes they're taking a go-slow approach, but I think there's an Aesop fable about that... Those that dismiss the Chinese program as 42 years too late need to get their eyes checked. First, out of the gate they've got what may just be a noticeably more capable craft than the Russians' new Soyuz-TM models (yes, I know they need to establish more of an experience base before anyone can state that conclusively). Second, the US is about to embark on a program to build a manned capsule (in one design at least, and the other design is just a capsule with larger cross-range on landing & that's harder to launch) as it's primary human transport. In terms of manned space capability (but not technology) we'll have embarked in some sense on a "Great Leap Backward". Once the shuttle is phased out and our manned program rests in a capsule, just what, exactly, will the difference in manned space capability be between the US and China?

- Eric.

Once the shuttle is phased out and our manned program rests in a capsule, just what, exactly, will the difference in manned space capability be between the US and China?

If by "our manned program," you mean NASA, then nothing.

But I suspect that they'll be continuing to throw away their rockets with every flight, and we'll be flying privately-developed space transports.

"something worth considering are these estimates of the Chinese program running at ~$2 billion/year."

Chinese media has stated that all the five Shenzou flights _together_ cost about 2.2B, so its more like half a billion per year. And thats including development costs.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-10/16/content_1127320.htm

"Xie confirmed that China has spent 18 billion yuan ( about 2.2 billion US dollars) on the five spacecraft of the Shenzhou series that have been launched so far. "

But I suspect that they'll be continuing to throw away their rockets with every flight, and we'll be flying privately-developed space transports.

And if these look like they work, what is going to stop China buying in the technology.

Bought a cellphone recently?

And if these look like they work, what is going to stop China buying in the technology.

Nothing. As I said, if they start to follow that lead, then I'll be concerned. But not as long as they continue down the current path.