This post by Mark Whittington prompts me to clarify my position. I don't think that the Chinese space program is flawed because it is simply a copy of Russian technology (though it is to a large extent), and I've never said that. I believe that it's flawed because it's a copy of Russian (and, in the 1960s, American) space vehicle philosophy.

They apparently think that the road to the universe lies in putting up capsules on expendable (and intrinsically expensive and unreliable, at least at the flight rates contemplated) launchers. Forty years ago, this was an approach that made sense to win a race to the Moon. In the twenty-first century, it's a road to frustration and stagnation.

As I wrote last week, a true free-market approach (of which, under the current regime, I suspect they're incapable) will leave them in the dust. That's why I don't even consider them relevant to our species' future in space, unless they display some dramatic change in approach.

The only problem is, that the free-market approach may not come to pass anytime soon or it might stumble into mess of regulations, bueraucracy and sheer obstructionism by established aerospace conglomerate.
And you might still underestimate not only Chinese technical capability ( they claim to have gotten no help from russians, except from Taikonaut training ), but also philosophy.
Competition existed also in Soviet space developments between different design bureaus and institutions. Similar competition might be in effect in china, although according to reports the major players seem to come from different universities.

http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/chinamoo.html

Rand, I don't think I even named you in the post you refer to, though I did have your jibe about Russian technology in mind.

As for launching capsules in expendable rockets, I can only say that one has to start somewhere, just as we did. It is not, in my judgement, a reason for complacency.

Competition within an institution -- such as a government -- is purely imaginary.

So how do we make a buck in space? Besides zero-g pharmaceuticals, that is (and I'm not holding my breath on these)? Asteroid mining? Is anyone working on strap-on boosters that could be attached to said asteroid(s)? Is anyone working on the development of living technology (stuff we need in order to live and work in interplanetary space)? Has anyone tried to do a proof of concept with a mini solar power satellite beaming microwaves to a sister satellite nearby?

Kevin,

No, we saw competition within the Soviet military-industrial complex repeatedly. The Soviet tank design bureaus, for example, were clearly in competition (there were three of them, believe it or not).

The question is what the competition was intended to do. In the Soviet case, it DID produce some degrees of innovation, although these were as much the result of individual brilliance as the existence of the various bureaus. It did NOT produce systematic efficiencies, as capitalism does. It did NOT produce systematic scientific advances, either (compare the relative leap forward of the T-55, versus the same-old same-old of the T-72 series, relative to their predecessors).

That being said, internal competition is definitely a "second-best" approach; better than no competition, but hardly a substitute for real, balls-to-the-wall competition as seen in capitalist systems.

I stand corrected, Dean. Thanks.

Sometimes the best way to learn something valuable is to say something dumb. ;-)

Mark, of course one has to start somewhere. But I think that XCOR and others are starting somewhere much more promising than simply repeating the failed approaches of the past, as the Chinese are doing.

Rand, I aree with that point. However we are ot doing enough to encourage or facilitate efforts like XCOR, not to speak of getting out of their way. Idily suggesting that we don't need to worry about China because the free markert wll beat China when we don't actualy follow the free market approach seems to me to be just a little bit complacent. And then of course there is the national security aspect of dealing with a Chinese lunar effort (which I think is coming sooner than I think you do) that simply cannot be dealt with totally by sitting back and waiting for XCOR to do it.

Of course the Chinese (or the Indians) could just do an end run around us all and launch an Orion drive system.

If the Americans were certain they could make one in the 1960s, then the Chinese would be able to make one now, and that would put them way, way ahead of anything contemplated in the West.

We couldn't even catch up, for environmental reasons.

Have you ever had an epiphany but had no ability to express it? I've been thinking about the 'cheap access' and 'why go' threads of thought. Chemical seems to require expendability because parasitic weight looms so large. So while I agree with private efforts and enjoy the cool ideas, I expect most to fail if they do anything but make really cheap expendables. Some form of 'Orion' seems the most promising answer but with the histeria associated with nuclear technology it may be a non starter, particularly for private companies.

The epiphany is that energy is the fundamental issue. The 'why go' is that space fairing civilizations can not possibly be based on chemical propulsion for anything more than maneuver thrust. We must go, regardless of any other financial justification because of the psychological justification that if we don't it will be a long time if ever that we can start living in style as Pournelle wrote so long ago in 'a step farther out.'

While I don't see the Chinese program as the second coming, I am encouraged by the fact that getting into space still seems to be a drive of mankind, even if it's not for the right reasons. I would hope that we put mankind into space for any reason, because ultimately we must leave this cradle and grow to maturity... or die.

Nothing wrong with expendability or partial expendability as long as it helps reduce costs and improve reliability.
There are some expendable parts in your car as well ( other than fuel or energy source ), like brake discs. Nobody's complaining as long as the maintenance and replacement costs are reasonable.

I don't know what you mean by "parasitic weight." There's nothing intrinsic to chemical rockets that require expendability. In fact, if we want low-cost launch, I'd say it's just the opposite.