KiwieeiwiK

KiwieeiwiK t1_j6jjy55 wrote

the current timeline has NASA getting humans back to the moon slightly before China but that could change

Either way I don't think either space program sees the other as an adversary in any way, it's purely political games. China would happily collaborate with the US on space tech, however it is against US law for NASA to cooperate with China

2

KiwieeiwiK t1_j6eiy26 wrote

The inclination from the summit of Mitre Peak to the sea is steeper than the cliffs in Moloka'i. The Moloka'i cliffs are also a summit, they're from a mountain that falls into the sea, same as Mitre Peak. There's really no metric that says Moloka'i is a sea cliff and Mitre Peak isn't. Mitre Peak is taller, and steeper.

1

KiwieeiwiK t1_j6eedpk wrote

And yet they are not.

The cliffs that all these articles (travel aggregate sites are not good references lol) are talking about are 1,010m high with an average gradient of 55°. The eastern face of Mitre Peak is 1,683m high with an average gradient of 60°. So it is not only taller but steeper as well.

Sorry but they're all wrong. Doesn't matter how many times something is repeated, it doesn't get more correct just because more people say it.

0

KiwieeiwiK t1_j6cs60g wrote

I mean yeah I guess, but it's really only in the interests of the tour companies that are trying to get people to visit there to have that info spread. And the million websites that are trying to make a buck off repeating info with no checking

I didn't mean native Hawaiians for the record

Greater Polynesian solidarity

4

KiwieeiwiK t1_iyfcss5 wrote

>Does this have relation to China announcing they will build several thousand nuclear warheads in the coming years?

These are numbers from the Pentagon, not from China. They went from 200 warheads to 400 and the Pentagon said "If they keep going at this pace for more than another decade, they will be at 1,500 warheads!!"

It's a nonsense idea.

Think about why the Pentagon might want the American people to be scared of a rising Chinese army. What benefits could they get from pushing the idea of a warhead gap?

2

KiwieeiwiK t1_iyfby2z wrote

There was no end game to the first space race, the idea of humans on the moon being the finishing line came much later, and mostly after the US had done it and the USSR had failed to. The space race began in 1955, before anyone had even got anything into space, the idea that "we are going to walk on the moon before you" was some kind of goal of the US is absurd.

The first real target of the space race was to get a satellite into orbit.

2

KiwieeiwiK t1_iyfbh9o wrote

>The ISS was launched 20+ years ago. Di the technogical advances even 3xist then?

No, but that's their point. It isn't "China's space station is better because China is better", it's "China's station is better because it's newer"

It's not a criticism of the US or Russia or the ISS project as a whole. Newer things are just better.

7

KiwieeiwiK t1_iyc0k52 wrote

The issue isn't in thrust or fuel tolerances, the rockets used on the core stage are only able to be fired once since they use pyrotechnic charges to get the turbines to start spinning on the pad. Replacing them would mean completely redesigning the entire rocket, you can't just take off one rocket engine and add a different one like in Kerbal Space Program, it takes years of rigorous testing and certifying. And it would require many more launches of core stages we have no guarantee would come down from orbit anyway.

0

KiwieeiwiK t1_iyc08rq wrote

"Made in China" is a reputation gained because westerners demand to buy the cheapest shit possible. It is western companies that skimp on manufacturing costs that make those goods poor quality.

Chinese space program is cutting edge and they've never lost a single astronaut. Which you would know if you were anything but a raging reactionary

0

KiwieeiwiK t1_iyc01ue wrote

China is actually generally just as good as every other country in modern times. The only modern exception is the CZ-5B because it is fitting a very specific function the CZ-5 was not originally designed to fulfill, and an alternative was too many years away. It's only got one more planned launch left anyway

1

KiwieeiwiK t1_iybzfrm wrote

For the record the villages are evacuated before the launch by the government for this reason.

The reason they built their launch site inland and with villages downrange was to protect it from either Soviet invasion from the West or US naval attack from the sea. In the 1960s/70s that was a very real threat.

1

KiwieeiwiK t1_iybz18z wrote

Personally I find this subreddit one of the most "China neutral" subs around. Yes there's always reactionaries posting the same old tired lines, but they're generally ignored and/or disagreed with. Very happy this sub can find common joy and admiration with all nations and people!

0