zlacker

> This space race is different for one core reason: China is more stable than the Soviet Union was in the 1960s.

> If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth.

This is kind of underselling the situation. China is more stable than the U.S. China is also beating the pants off the U.S. in several sectors and in the ones they're not, they're rapidly catching up.

When China beats the U.S. to the Moon, they will also have surpassed the U.S. in several other sectors as well at the same time, all while having a more stable government and continuing to increase the size of their middle class.

>>bmitc+(OP)
The US landed on the moon in the 1960s. "Beating to the moon" isn't how I'd call this.

>>glimsh+e
There are many firsts to be claimed.

First semipermanent settlement. First industrial capacity. First lunar launch facility.

>>bmitc+(OP)
> China is more stable than the U.S. China is also beating the pants off the U.S. in several sectors and in the ones they're not, they're rapidly catching up.

And another big difference is that during the US/Russia space race, the US had a GDP three times the size the GDP of Russia.

Now the US's GDP is only 50% bigger than China's GDP. So nearly 200% bigger vs Russia back then and only 50% bigger vs China now: it's not the same game anymore.

>>Tactic+ls
And that's before you get into purchasing power parity. Not only at the consumer level, but the government level. The US has been working on SLS for what, 15 years? And its an overpriced mess.