China's lack of legacy programs could speed its moon landing

Transcript

Transcribed by machine (Whisper) from the episode’s audio, so a word may be off here and there.

1. 38:36

   where the going to space is really kind of a humanity effort. And I love the way NASA's always positioned that way. How do you take into account all the geopolitical tensions with China, India, Russia all trying to get to the moon? And long term, do you see that resolving in some way? Or does it just stay attention and you just figure figure out how to navigate it? Is the competition better than the collaboration for your budget, at least for all mankind?

2. 39:01

   Yeah, of course it is. Look, there's nothing wrong with having good, healthy. We're Americans. We like competition. It worked very well for us in the 1960s. And now now what happens? Peter and I go to Baikonur in 2008 and the same rocket we were competing against was helping. I mean, it was really the beginning of the commercial space era in a lot of ways. And then, again, just days ago, I was able to take a close friend in NASA astronaut and walk him to the ladder of Soyuz.

3. 39:30

   So, what an example of where competition fueled so much for the benefit of all in early days and now turns into a collaborative effort of which, without, you would not be able to sustain the International Space Station, And especially in cases like Crew-11, where NASA had to recall our crew complement, and yet you were able to have continuity because there was an American who was up there, Chris Williamson, via the Soyuz method.

4. 39:54

   So, look, where competition starts can lead to really totally fine. outcomes in the end. Right now, China and the U.S. for sure are both very committed to getting to the moon. The Chinese and their roadmap, it will lead to success. There's no doubt. I mean, they will absolutely do what the Soviets could not in the 1960s. We would certainly like to get there before them. They're building a base. We're going to build a base. This is fine. This is all uh good things and um and and certainly we've shown that even having a space race uh you know can help um and and its eventual collaborative mean you know if it turns into uh collaborative means like we have in the international space station can transcend a lot of the the the geopolitical strife that can happen here on earth chinese on the moon by 2030 that's their goal do

5. 40:49

   you think they hit it? Yes, I do. I think that they have a second mover advantage in a lot of ways. They do not have any baggage. What do I mean by that? If you look at the way, I want to say their civil space program, but they've recently merged that back again into their military efforts. It's a la the Manhattan Project and the Apollo era. They're building centers and recruiting the people they need to do one thing. Stennis just doing propulsion, for example.

6. 41:22

   Kennedy Space Center just launching rockets. Marshall doing a lot of the engineering. Texas being the operations and training center. That's how they all began. If you think about it, it's analogous, again, to the Manhattan Project of what did we need Los Alamos for? What did we need Oak Ridge for. What happens absent competition is all those centers that were built to serve a specific purpose, where you recruited talent to do a specific job, turn into doing anything other than maybe what they were doing in the first place, or at least adding on a lot of other things that can distract from its original intended purpose. Now, what are we doing at NASA? We're going around and refocusing everybody back into that original direction. The Chinese do not have any of that baggage right now. They're literally starting from scratch and highly focused in their

7. 42:11

   effort. They're drawing on a playbook that worked very well for us in the 1960s. I have no doubt they're going to achieve their goals. And they have five-year plans, not annual budget cycles. Yeah. Yeah. Salim. Yeah.