4 ms·

Necessity. China is banned from international space cooperation. They have to master space technology themselves because they can't rely on others. In order to

Necessity. China is banned from international space cooperation. They have to master space technology themselves because they can't rely on others. In order to do that, risks must be taken and sacrifices are necessary. On a broader level, the Chinese think they made a mistake in not investing in science and technology for so long (read: the past couple hundred years). They see lack of science and technology as one of the main reasons why the were so miserable the past 150 years (minus the past 40 years or so). So they're not going to make that mistake again. It's perhaps the "sacrifices are necessary" point that western commentators most disagree with. After all it goes against the idea of individual freedom. But China is very much a country that prioritizes collective interests over individual interests. This isn't even a weird thing on the world stage: most Asian countries have a similar mindset.

bryananderson 4y ago
I can’t emphasize enough how not necessary it is to have the upper stage of CZ-5B reenter uncontrolled. Nudging the stage into the atmosphere while over an ocean is a much easier problem than launching the rocket on a precise trajectory to rendezvous with a space station. China clearly has the capability; not doing it is a choice.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  So why isn't Starlink doing it? https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416 And why isn't there a similar amount of outrage against Starlink? Genuine question.
  - sam_bristow 4y ago
    I believe Starlink satellites are small enough that they'd burn up completely in the atmosphere before crashing into anything.
    - FooBarWidget 4y ago
      And this Chinese rocket stage won't burn up completely? Do all other countries' rocket stages burn up completely?
      - bryananderson 4y ago
        Correct, an object of this size is almost certain to not burn up completely (and indeed it did not). The same is true for other countries’ rockets, which is why those countries nudge them into the atmosphere over the ocean. China’s refusal to do this standard, low-tech mitigation is the reason for the outrage.
  - bryananderson 4y ago
    The amount of potential debris is roughly proportional to the mass of the object (maybe more than linear, since smaller objects tend to disintegrate with no detectable debris at all). A Starlink satellite is about 260 kg. The CZ-5B stage is about 23,000 kg. It’s almost 100x the mass, hence 100x the danger (or more, since satellite-sized objects rarely have any debris) and 100x the outrage.
mlindner 4y ago
This is wrong on numerous points. > China is banned from international space cooperation. Firstly, China is not banned from international space cooperation. They have worked with several other agencies including ESA and Roscosmos. The only ban that exists is the US restricting China from working with it because of a history of their seizing and stealing of US civil space technology for military purposes. > In order to do that, risks must be taken and sacrifices are necessary. You can take risks and sacrifices without endangering the general public of your own country and especially without endangering the public of the world. China has the technology to de-orbit vehicles, they just refuse to implement it on some vehicles. > They see lack of science and technology as one of the main reasons why the were so miserable the past 150 years (minus the past 40 years or so). This is the myth of "chinese national humiliation" that is a common talking point of Chinese nationalists and is used to foment nationalist sentiment. Repeating it doesn't make it real. > But China is very much a country that prioritizes collective interests over individual interests. You can do that (with criticism) and endanger the population of your own country but you can't at all do that internationally. That's a ridiculous claim. > This isn't even a weird thing on the world stage: most Asian countries have a similar mindset. This is again completely false. Japan values the life of an individual at even higher levels than we do in the US. It's not an Asian sentiment. It's a Chinese Communist Party sentiment. (BTW this technique of expanding their own values to all of Asia is something that Imperial Japan did heavily in the decades lead up to WW2. Let's hope China doesn't head along a similiar route. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperit...)
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  > This is the myth of "chinese national humiliation" that is a common talking point of Chinese nationalists and is used to foment nationalist sentiment. Repeating it doesn't make it real. The idea has existed way before the CCP was formed. See the May 4th movement. Just because you don't want to acknowledge it doesn't mean it's fake. Calling someone a "nationalist" just because you don't like the point, neither automatically makes that person a nationalist, nor does it invalidate the point. It's also interesting how people say "never forget" w.r.t. WW2 atrocities, but when it comes to atrocities done against China it quickly becomes "get over it". > you can't at all do that internationally. Not disagreeing with you. But please tell me why Starlink has uncontrolled reentry, and why there's not a similar amount of outrage against that. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416 > Japan values the life of an individual at even higher levels than we do in the US. You mean Japanese aren't known to do things that they don't like at an individual level, but still do because they feel compelled to for the benefit of the group? What do you think the phenomenon of not being able to turn down a boss invitation to group drinking exactly is? Why do you think Japanese has fewer problems with masks? > BTW this technique of expanding their own values to all of Asia Woah, now where does this accusation come from? Do you have any sources backing up your claim that this is what they're doing?

bryananderson 4y ago

I can’t emphasize enough how not necessary it is to have the upper stage of CZ-5B reenter uncontrolled. Nudging the stage into the atmosphere while over an ocean is a much easier problem than launching the rocket on a precise trajectory to rendezvous with a space station. China clearly has the capability; not doing it is a choice.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
So why isn't Starlink doing it? https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416 And why isn't there a similar amount of outrage against Starlink? Genuine question.
- sam_bristow 4y ago
  I believe Starlink satellites are small enough that they'd burn up completely in the atmosphere before crashing into anything.
  - FooBarWidget 4y ago
    And this Chinese rocket stage won't burn up completely? Do all other countries' rocket stages burn up completely?
    - bryananderson 4y ago
      Correct, an object of this size is almost certain to not burn up completely (and indeed it did not). The same is true for other countries’ rockets, which is why those countries nudge them into the atmosphere over the ocean. China’s refusal to do this standard, low-tech mitigation is the reason for the outrage.
- bryananderson 4y ago
  The amount of potential debris is roughly proportional to the mass of the object (maybe more than linear, since smaller objects tend to disintegrate with no detectable debris at all). A Starlink satellite is about 260 kg. The CZ-5B stage is about 23,000 kg. It’s almost 100x the mass, hence 100x the danger (or more, since satellite-sized objects rarely have any debris) and 100x the outrage.

mlindner 4y ago

This is wrong on numerous points. > China is banned from international space cooperation. Firstly, China is not banned from international space cooperation. They have worked with several other agencies including ESA and Roscosmos. The only ban that exists is the US restricting China from working with it because of a history of their seizing and stealing of US civil space technology for military purposes. > In order to do that, risks must be taken and sacrifices are necessary. You can take risks and sacrifices without endangering the general public of your own country and especially without endangering the public of the world. China has the technology to de-orbit vehicles, they just refuse to implement it on some vehicles. > They see lack of science and technology as one of the main reasons why the were so miserable the past 150 years (minus the past 40 years or so). This is the myth of "chinese national humiliation" that is a common talking point of Chinese nationalists and is used to foment nationalist sentiment. Repeating it doesn't make it real. > But China is very much a country that prioritizes collective interests over individual interests. You can do that (with criticism) and endanger the population of your own country but you can't at all do that internationally. That's a ridiculous claim. > This isn't even a weird thing on the world stage: most Asian countries have a similar mindset. This is again completely false. Japan values the life of an individual at even higher levels than we do in the US. It's not an Asian sentiment. It's a Chinese Communist Party sentiment. (BTW this technique of expanding their own values to all of Asia is something that Imperial Japan did heavily in the decades lead up to WW2. Let's hope China doesn't head along a similiar route. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperit...)

FooBarWidget 4y ago
> This is the myth of "chinese national humiliation" that is a common talking point of Chinese nationalists and is used to foment nationalist sentiment. Repeating it doesn't make it real. The idea has existed way before the CCP was formed. See the May 4th movement. Just because you don't want to acknowledge it doesn't mean it's fake. Calling someone a "nationalist" just because you don't like the point, neither automatically makes that person a nationalist, nor does it invalidate the point. It's also interesting how people say "never forget" w.r.t. WW2 atrocities, but when it comes to atrocities done against China it quickly becomes "get over it". > you can't at all do that internationally. Not disagreeing with you. But please tell me why Starlink has uncontrolled reentry, and why there's not a similar amount of outrage against that. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1551434933285052416 > Japan values the life of an individual at even higher levels than we do in the US. You mean Japanese aren't known to do things that they don't like at an individual level, but still do because they feel compelled to for the benefit of the group? What do you think the phenomenon of not being able to turn down a boss invitation to group drinking exactly is? Why do you think Japanese has fewer problems with masks? > BTW this technique of expanding their own values to all of Asia Woah, now where does this accusation come from? Do you have any sources backing up your claim that this is what they're doing?