Is China's Space Race An Opportunity For the US? 164
Hugh Pickens writes "Lieutenant General Frank Klotz (ret.), the former vice commander of Air Force Space Command, writes that it's worth considering whether aspects of the U.S.-Russian experience with space cooperation can be pursued with China to serve long-term American interests. 'China has in many respects already reached the top tier of spacefaring nations — with profound implications for America's own interests in space,' writes Klotz. While initially starting well behind the two original space powers, China has slowly but steadily added accomplishments to its space portfolio, conducting nineteen space launches in 2011 — twelve less than Russia but one more than the United States. It's worth recalling that even in the darkest days of the Cold War, the United States and its archrival at the time — the Soviet Union — embarked upon cooperative efforts in space, most famously with the joint Apollo-Soyuz docking mission in 1975 and today the first stage of one of the rockets that currently lofts U.S. national-security satellites into orbit — United Launch Alliance's Atlas V booster — uses the powerful RD-180 rocket engine, which is made in Russia. Washington has called for enhanced dialogue with Beijing on strategic issues and for military-to-military exchanges to help reduce uncertainty and potential misunderstandings, however, in May of last year, the House inserted a provision into the NASA appropriations bill prohibiting the US from spending any funds 'to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company' and blocking the hosting of official Chinese visitors at facilities belonging to or used by NASA. 'This legislative action reportedly reflected deeply held concerns about protecting American intellectual property and sensitive technologies in the face of aggressive Chinese attempts to glean scientific and technical information from abroad,' writes Klotz. 'However, in the process, it foreclosed one possible avenue for gaining greater insight into China's intentions with respect to space.'"
Exclude the really bad ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
writes Klotz. "However, in the process, it foreclosed one possible avenue for gaining greater insight into China's intentions with respect to space."
Luckily that avenue is risky and useless. Isn't a very early step in the decision making process "exclude the really bad ideas"?
Re: (Score:3)
Once again Congress shows that lawyers and politicians are just ever so much better at creating a future for humanity in space than scientists and engineers.
Europe will if the US won't (Score:5, Interesting)
The European aerospace industry seems to see the recent US ban on cooperation with the Chinese space program as an opportunity, and is stepping up [spiegel.de] cooperation.
Concerns about intellectual property (Score:5, Insightful)
You can either cooperate. It means you have no unique intellectual property (IP) position, but through the widespread use of your IP you might get some benefits back like cheaper space flight. Also, with some luck, new orders for your own local economy, where that IP originated and where the most knowledge is available.
Or you can protect the IP. No cooperation. Create an inflexible closed operation. Costs increase and without cooperation you'll have to invent everything yourself, or buy it under a license agreement. The best case scenario you succeed at being the first at everything. In a worse scenario, you pay for knowledge. In the worst cases, you either have no access, or you're violating someone else's IP.
Look at the money being squandered on patent battles in courts in the IT and also manufacturing industries. Don't get space flight locked into a similar situation, because there's no way out.
Cooperation through openness is the way forward. But it takes some balls to start doing that. (And please note that top managers and politicians, who think only short term, generally don't have those).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll note I didn't absolutely claim it didn't happen. And your, "oh this was a couple of years back" and "here's some examples from decades ago" just proves my point.
Given the list of
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't generalize from them to other industries - I used them as a specific example. Learn to read and comprehend.
Slightly off topic question about the RD-180 (Score:5, Interesting)
Since its topical, and in "space articles" we often get real rocket scientists reading, how does the oxygen rich preburner in the RD-180 work? I don't mean the "duh" stuff like how do you adjust the mixture, but what in the world are these guys doing for metalurgy such that you can basically pipe a metal cutting torch's flame around the innards of an engine? Or is it something totally bonkers like they use nozzle style film cooling inside the pipes and stuff (which doesn't help with the turbopumps, but...)
I would assume if the russians ship working hardware to the DoD that whatever the answer is, its probably not classified.
Also I might be dense here but isn't it harder to maintain stable combustion when oxidizer rich rather than fuel rich? Or maybe its just "different" for an industry used to running fuel rich?
Do they use oxidizer rich preburner gas to cool the nozzle? I'm guessing they aren't that crazy and use the traditional nozzle coolant of fuel. Now a oxidizer regeneratively cooled nozzle would be bonkers, I don't recall anything that crazy. Maybe one of those weird solid fuel/liquid ox hybrids used liq O2 to cool the nozzle. I would imagine a pinhole leak in a oxy cooled nozzle would be a pretty spectacular failure whereas a pinhole in a fuel cooled nozzle is pretty much irrelevant until its a big enough leak to affect flow rates...
The background is that the 170/180 are the only engines I can think of off the top of my head that run oxidizer rich... every one else preburns fuel rich because a traditional welder's cutting torch is an oxidizer rich flame and putting what amounts to a cutting torch inside a engine seems a recipe for disaster. On the other hand oxidizer rich would seem to eliminate carbon/tar/gunk buildup issues. Maybe if you're stuck using heavy tarry parafiny filthy liquid fuels, like cruise ship heavy bunker oil as a fuel, the oxidizer problems are easier solved than creating a whole new fuel refining infrastructure... Would be interesting to know the design tradeoff, assuming its not just "too many bottles of vodka"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OK a coating makes sense in all regards. Analogy is its one thing to know a machine tool/drill bit has a thin anti-wear coating made out of a certain peculiar ratio of titanium and nitrogen, but its an immensely bigger problem to figure out how to make it and stick it to the underlying material.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have heard pretty much the same thing. And, it's not like this is their state of the art any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you AC you should post under your name to get credit for a good ref link like that.
Some highlights:
1) Cooler oxidizer rich gas has the same turbine power as warmer fuel rich gas. So you're comparing cool oxy rich vs hot fuel rich, so its not as much of an issue as you'd guess since chemical reactivity scales pretty strongly with temperature. Product gas is denser and cooler, the machinery is smaller and lighter, meaning you need less miracle coating or miracle high temp alloy for an overall net gain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China still playing catch-up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
rather than wait until they've passed what NASA can do.
in some ways they already passed what NASA can do. At this very moment we (USA) cannot put people in space. Of course we have systems under development.Orion though I don't know when they will ever fly it. There is still no launch vehicle everyone agrees on. Then there's Dragon....... gotta wait and see how it turns out.
Where is the summary? (Score:2)
Oh, *that* was it? Slashdot editorial quality is in the toilet, really. I've come to accept incessant grammatical and spelling errors in summaries. But this is just lazy sloppy work. Please make a *summary* that is short, clear and explains why I should read the rest of the article.
Or, to put it in terms that even slashdot editor could understand:
tl;dr;
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, *that* was it? Slashdot editorial quality is in the toilet, really. I've come to accept incessant grammatical and spelling errors in summaries. But this is just lazy sloppy work. Please make a *summary* that is short, clear and explains why I should read the rest of the article.
Or, to put it in terms that even slashdot editor could understand: tl;dr;
You actually read the article? I was going to say you must be new here, but a 5-digit id... you must have been on a break. I mean, c'mon, this is slashdot.
What Space Race? (Score:2)
Darkest Days? (Score:5, Interesting)
That was great and all, but 1975 hardly qualifies as the darkest days of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis was certainly darker, and was right at the start of the space race. Kennedy had set the goal of reaching the moon just a month earlier, and no one would claim there was any collaboration in space for the next decade. Lobbing humans into orbit and lobbing nukes aren't all that different, after all. There were other dark times during the 1980s, and I doubt anyone would claim that was a great time for space collaboration, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbing humans into orbit and lobbing nukes aren't all that different, after all.
Which of course was why the US developed the capability send a man to the Moon. Smokescreen for Kennedy's real agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
1957 may have been the scariest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kennedy had set the goal of reaching the moon just a month earlier, and no one would claim there was any collaboration in space for the next decade.
Only because Kennedy was assassinated. He actually had a pretty good working relationship with his opposite number in the USSR, and there were serious plans to cooperate on getting to the moon. Then he died and that relationship went with him.
It's a real shame because as well as reducing hostilities it would have pushed technology and space exploration forwards and saved money.
Cooperate with your current associates first (Score:2)
If the US really is in a cooperative mood, how about not backing out of the ISS program in 2016 or 2020? It hasn't even been completed yet and they already planning how to deorbit it.
Re: (Score:3)
But there is little doubt that we will continue the ISS probably until 2025. Or we will turn it over to our allies.
Re:China will ultimately whip the USA in everythin (Score:5, Insightful)
As people say, China will get old before they get rich. Please don't interpret me as saying America doesn't have several problems they have to work through, but at the very least they don't have a demographic problem (compared to most parts of the developed world).
China's one child policy is ultimately going to bite them. I know the general sentiment on Slashdot is Malthusian, but the number one resource of a nation is people. And if you have a demographic of population decline (eventually), a lot of single males, and too many old people relative to young people, that's not a long-term trend for success.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
China has a one child policy? What are you stuck in the 1970s when it was implemented?
There are so many loop holes in that policy one can drive a truck through it.
There are exemptions if your first child was a girl, many regions of China now have locally implemented a two child policy across the board, Ethnic minorities (there are 55 in China) are allowed 2 Children in urban areas, or 4 in rural areas, with Tibet's Autonomous region declaring there is no limitations to the number of kids one has. These
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the demographic problem those policies created still exist though, and will until the "problem generations" die off. And even if the child restriction only really applies to the least-fortunate 1/2 or 1/4 of the population that's still an ongoing contributor to demographic imbalance
On the other hand the bulk of their population is still agrarian, and as they industrialize the surge in per-capita productivity will likely outstrip the demographic problems. It doesn't really matter much to the econo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A lot of the demographic problem those policies created still exist though.
Verses what our baby boom generation?
You do realize that our demographics are more screwed up then theirs already right? Under 9% of China's population is over 65, but in the US, the figure is already at 13%, and in Canada 16%. Or look at their close neighbour the Japanese, with a whopping 23% over the age of 65!
And even if the child restriction only really applies to the least-fortunate 1/2 or 1/4 of the population that's still an ongoing contributor to demographic imbalance.
It is not the "least fortunate" who are still blocked from having more then one child, seeing as China's least fortunate populations are rural and they have had easy exemptions and tiny fines for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's embarrassing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually know any mainland Chinese ? I do, they are of course middle class engineers and the like, and they are following the one child policy. It sees pretty real to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the number one resource of a nation is people. And if you have a demographic of population decline (eventually), a lot of single males, and too many old people relative to young people, that's not a long-term trend for success.
Because having billions of starving young people fighting for resources is so much more fun!
Re: (Score:2)
Due to China's low cost labor, we, in the US, have been able to enjoy a -much- higher standard of living than we otherwise would be able to have. In exchange, China is getting a huge amount of capital which raises their standard of living, although, due to not having a free market it really only raises the standard of living for those at the top.
Re:China will ultimately whip the USA in everythin (Score:5, Insightful)
China is getting a huge amount of capital which raises their standard of living, although, due to not having a free market it really only raises the standard of living for those at the top.
How is that different than the USA? Wages have been stagnent for all but those at the very top for decades. Real income is actually slipping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:China will ultimately whip the USA in everythin (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually class mobility in the USA is pretty much at an all time low.
I know that conflicts with your American Dream mythology, but that is all it ever was a myth.
Starting your own business in the US is easy, making it big pretty much requires political connections or connections with already established big business.
Seems like the Chinese are run by government bureaucrats and we are run by Corporate bureaucrats.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
75%-80% of all people earning about $500,000 per year did not come from wealthy backgrounds. Mobility is not as difficult as your make it to be. The bigger issue is that it now takes time and money to move between financial classes. You must have a skill and you must put the time into developing it.You must also be willing to take some risk. Hard work at your job alone is no longer enough.
I am surprised the the parent is modded up. It is unsubstantiated opinion and bordering on pure fiction.
Re:China will ultimately whip the USA in everythin (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation needed.
The way social mobility is kept low is because poor people do *not* have time, have no money, have no opportunity to develop skills and cannot afford to take the risk. These problems are far from as trivial as you make it sound. Work a poorly paid 18 hour day, and be forced to decide between medical care, food, and education, and realise that financial failure means starvation, and you will see how easy it is to be trapped in poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness though our addiction to consumerist culture exacerbates most of those problems dramatically. Immigrants from less materialistic cultures can often do quite well for themselves on the exact same income, and boggle at native-born Americans claiming they have no opportunities while simultaneously pissing away their income on enough housing to hold all the junk they buy. (Illegal immigrants have it worse since they are much more vulnerable to exploitation)
Re:China will ultimately whip the USA in everythin (Score:4, Informative)
As an overall percentage, it's down. In the 1970s, 36% of US families stayed in the same income quintile. In the 1980s, 37%, and in the 1990s, 40%. That's reduced class mobility. How significant this is debatable, but it's not "unsubstantiated opinion and bordering on pure fiction".
http://www.economist.com/node/3518560?story_id=3518560 [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As an overall percentage, it's down. In the 1970s, 36% of US families stayed in the same income quintile. In the 1980s, 37%, and in the 1990s, 40%. That's reduced class mobility. How significant this is debatable, but it's not "unsubstantiated opinion and bordering on pure fiction".
Measuring economic mobility by using quintiles is incredibly misleading. It punishes more powerful economies where there is more room between quintiles.
In 1971, there was a $25,200 gap between the average income of the 2nd and 4th quintiles in the US (in 2005 dollars).
In 2005, there was a $36,600 gap between the average income of the 2nd and 4th quintiles in the US.
This means the 3rd quintile grew by $5700, or 45%.
Average Income By Quintile [kltprc.info]
Considering the increased size of each quintile, it is obvious tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, USA is nowadays characterized by the lowest [huffingtonpost.com] social mobility among western countries. [pewstates.org] The only other country that comes close is the UK. [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at actual numbers rather than relative numbers: "Most Americans (84 percent) exceed their parents income at a similar stage....Among sons, 59 percent had higher inflation-adjusted wages and salaries than their fathers." (source) [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
They consider more factors than the ones you referred and place US as one of the worst. The actual research is located here [russellsage.org]. Do dig into the data (There is a link in the right half of the page)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree. Family or school connections make things much much easier but making those same connections without a privileged background is certainly not out of reach. You do have to be arrogant, determined and willing to take risks while keeping your reputation clean (no powerful family to back you up).
The American Dream btw was not that anyone could become an elite power broker. It was that anyone can make their own destiny. There are a million millionaires in America that prove that one.
Re: (Score:2)
The American Dream btw was not that anyone could become an elite power broker. It was that anyone can make their own destiny. There are a million millionaires in America that prove that one.
Tush. Count the hits, ignore the misses. By that reasoning, there are several more million non-millionaires that disprove it.
Re: (Score:2)
High income taxes are the primary means the rich use to eliminate competition; they are a huge barrier to anyone trying to raise enough capital to build a small business, while they have little impact on the rich because most of their income isn't classed as 'income'.
They rely on the 'tax the rich!' useful idiots such as yourself, then laugh behind your back at how you're supporting taxes they use to screw you.
Re: (Score:3)
I 100% agree with your implicit argument that we should tax the shit out of capital gains.
Re: (Score:3)
How does that jive with reality?
Where some of the nations with the highest levels of class mobility also have the highest levels of income tax?
Why can we not classify all income the same way, including investment income for the purposes of taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
Where some of the nations with the highest levels of class mobility also have the highest levels of income tax?
Yes, it is easier for rich kids who go to college become poor kids in countries where income taxes and labor laws make these kids just out of college unemployable. Because they move down in the relative scale, poorer kids who can get blue collar jobs move up the relative scale.
That is why it is better to look at what children are making compared to their parents in absolute terms rather than looki
Re: (Score:2)
Spain is terrible economy no matter what. Has been forever.
Look at Norway then tell me those taxes are hurting them.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at Norway then tell me those taxes are hurting them.
Norway gets 20% of GDP from oil, so they can afford to be socialist!
Spain: "Government spending has increased to a level equivalent to 45.8 percent of GDP. The budget balance has fallen into deficit, and public debt has grown to around 60 percent of total domestic output."
Norway: "Government spending has risen to a level equivalent to 46.4 percent of total domestic output, but the budget balance remains in surplus due to oil revenues."
(Source: 2012 In [heritage.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wages have been stagnent for all but those at the very top for decades.
But real total compensation [blogspot.com] has risen over 100% from 1968 to 2008. You just don't see the increase in real wages because tax laws encourage more of your total compensation to go into benefits such as medical insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
it really only raises the standard of living for those at the top.
Fortunately we have The Free Market (tm) or this could be happening here too! Oh, the horror...
Re: (Score:3)
it really only raises the standard of living for those at the top.
The proportion of impoverished Chinese fell from 65% of the population in 1981 to 4% in 2007, during which time more than HALF A BILLION people were hoisted above the poverty line. (source) [worldbank.org]
Re: (Score:2)
China has a short term strategy.
Low Labor Costs, are based on supply and demand. There are a lot of Chinese (A big supply) bigger then their demand for work. However as they grow more, they will get more skilled, and begin to diversify their jobs, and demand more pay. Even in a totalitarian government, if the gap between their actual worth and what they get paid is too wide, there will be increase in under the counter work, or they will go to an other country (Brain drain in china).
Stealing IP, Isn't a st
Re: (Score:2)
*relegated
Obviously you're not factoring in the eventual Chinese dominance of international law :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cooperate with the Communists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cooperate with the Communists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that our capitalist victory over the communist bastards? :)
It seems that it never occurred to anyone that by winning the cold war, the communist countries would start playing the game by our own (rather ruthless) rules.
When they were commies, we could block them out. Now we have to allow them to play the game. Not sure what was a bigger threat for our western economies.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like NASA has a culture problem it needs to be fixed.
However I think if the public/the people who pay their checks, demand more cooperative efforts they will slowly change their mindsets.
But whenever you have different countries working together we always have these types of bickering, but they usually just go on in the higher levels, keep the press going on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone elaborate on why the US doesn't want to work with China at this point in time and how that's different from Russia in the past?
You must be young. Thats OK. Just saying. The market is much free-er now. In ye olden days high tech stuff simply did not cross the iron curtain. Occasionally you'd get a client state who couldn't seem to decide which side to ally with. But the idea of Japan or England or France or Australia or pretty much any country with no .ru military base on its soil buying a russian engine in 1970 for a commercial launch is pretty laughable for political considerations, so there were no large scale economic impa
Re: (Score:3)
Tressury notes will become worthless overnight. If the US can do it to China, who says they cannot do it to others. Being a sore loser never helps.
Not mention that China might very well go to war, if this happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Got it.
If China went to war with the US it would be a very short war primarily because China would have to attack US territory. Attacking things the neocon idiots think of as "American Interests", such as access to middle east oil, would only spur innovation in the US and get us to stop the equivalent of a national heroin addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
What China does is considered a fair fight, in the league of nations. US used to do it a lot and still does a lot of bullying.
China doesnt care about US territory, only about resources. It would gladly take foreign resources if it could (and some believe it can). And if there is one thing that really pisses of China, is affecting its economic interests. If you nullfy Treasurly bond, I would expect China to go on a full on war.
And you have no clue about how Treasure bonds becoming worthless w
Re: (Score:2)
Get real.
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, China is constantly dumping on foreign markets and constantly being found guilty of such. Likewise, it is know that they are manipulating their money which goes against the 2000 accords, as well as against IMF and WTO. Then they jumped from 90 trade barriers to over 400.
Fair? Not even close. Here, go look [worldbank.org] for yourself. [worldbank.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I was just referring to the hypothetical league. I was saying that as much as nations fights go, this is a fair one.
So china is being found guilty and is being punished for it. So as long as this keeps happening, everything is fine right? And didnt the US do the same when it was a rising power? Which again goes to prove that it is a pretty fair fight when it comes to the league of nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right. We have do something, so might as well stab ourselves. Treasury notes are only as good as the borrower's promise to pay back. If the borrower changes the terms later, even if just for china. They become worthless instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You dont understand. Treasury notes are not some sort of agreement between two govts. A lot of Treasury notes are privately held. You cannot make implicit terms with something that is as widely held (hell, my city holds some US Treasury bonds) and held by all sorts of people.
And it is funny that you should mention that US cannot inflate the currency to get rid of these notes. From what I understand from current policies, that is pretty much what US govt is currently doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I guess the People's Bank of China doesn't hold any US Treasuries and Chinese government doesn't have anything resembling an industrial policy that might be construed as systematic looting of US IP.
Re: (Score:2)
Irish idiot says
Yeah I guess the People's Bank of China doesn't hold any US Treasuries and Chinese government doesn't have anything resembling an industrial policy that might be construed as systematic looting of US IP.
People Bank of China does hold US treasury, and chinese govt does have loot US Ip. Neither of these mean that treasury notes come with an implicit agreement though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and that is a lot more likely to render US Treasuries untrustworthy than is lien imposition for criminal conduct.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand Chinese culture ...
BTW, who the hell makes you the expert on all things Chinese?
This is Slashdot, this is not some KKK-inspired site where you can blast your racial toxic waste
Go back to where you belong, you racist scumbag !!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I may not be a genius, but at least I do not post the following message:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3014151&cid=40822897 [slashdot.org]
Let me say it again: Slashdot is not a KKK inspired site for you to spew your racist venom
Get back to where you were from and stop spewing your racist diatribe here
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's NOT a problem with targeting specific contracts since they are held by the liable parties.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call when you target enemies and hit friendlies. That correct, friendly fire. Now read GP's post again.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sane world, this would be called a "national security threat" and be dealt with accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
No I am not linking any of these to IP held by US citizes at all. You are linking it. What I am saying is, nullfying US debt held by China makes no sense at all, what so ever. And I dont agree with the statement that US should be scared of China dumping US securities either. Please work on you reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
What doesn't make sense is for others, not engaged in an economic attack on the US, to view US securities as any less viable. Indeed, by defending its economic interests, the US would be demonstrating it, rather than China, would be in a better position to repay debt.
Re: (Score:2)
You still dont understand, I am not unhappy about you linking US IP infringement and US debt. What I am unhappy about is you responding to China's IP infringement by nullfying treasury bills. It is better to go to war with China rather than nullfy treasury bills (which I have saying in so many posts that it hurts us a lot lot lot more, which you convinently ignore and go back to saying something else).
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever...
Re: (Score:2)
If you are talking about Nuclear Thermal, I would not expect any international heat. NASA is also working hard on this (after almost 40 years of inertia).
If you are talking about an (original) Orion type "bombs out the rear" rocket, then, yes, I think there would be a pretty big stink. I don't see that coming.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese are useless ? (Score:3)
The Chinese are useless
Wow, and I never ever thought I would read something like that on a respectable site such as Slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, we had multiple rocket systems started back then. In particular the core technology that went into SpaceX's engine. Also, NASA came up with the precursor to COTs and sent it to CONgress to be approved. Sadly, the neo-cons