China's Space Program Thread II

[Blitzo]

It's this and that if China put pedal to the metal, America's launch tech lead would not hold on.

Acknowledging that something may or may not happen is the default answer with no background knowledge of the tech or circumstances. If you asked me anything I don't understand, my answer is maybe, maybe not.

If using past track records of success to predict future success with a high degree of confidence is Indian style nationalism, then what do you call guaranteeing victory through disseminating untruths despite a past record of failure?

See mine. I've not gotten any answer from you about whether you think it's different to guarantee victory from a track record of victory vs to guarantee victory from a track record of being left behind. You've so far treated them the same... both as Indians for some reason. You seemed to understand the difference in your first response, but then you have conflated them together.

I don't think I've fully articulated my weighing of key factors, which may have led to this misunderstanding. I write the below so yourself and other readers can put my previous posts in context.

I think that acknowledging a possibility of success/catchup is the most sensible way of taking inference from past track records, when accounting for other factors such as:
- existing and upcoming capabilities
- prospective time sensitivity as determining success of "catch-up" (most important)

For each domain of competition, all of those factors (along with past track record) deserve to be considered, and it is the two I mentioned above which make me feel "guaranteed catch-up" is far too overconfident of a claim to make, especially in context of the yet to be assessed time factor.

Putting it another way, if one acknowledges that time sensitivity may be a domain of said space competition, then that should cause one add a great amount of uncertainty to subtract from "guarantee".

If one doesn't think that time sensitivity is an element of said space competition, then the idea of catch-up being "guaranteed" is far more reasonable and something I am willing to entertain it, as it essentially gives the PRC a lot longer to take its time

 

[manqiangrexue]

I don't think I've fully articulated my weighing of key factors, which may have led to this misunderstanding. I write the below so yourself and other readers can put my previous posts in context.

I think that acknowledging a possibility of success/catchup is the most sensible way of taking inference from past track records, when accounting for other factors such as:
- existing and upcoming capabilities
- prospective time sensitivity as determining success of "catch-up" (most important)

For each domain of competition, all of those factors (along with past track record) deserve to be considered, and it is the two I mentioned above which make me feel "guaranteed catch-up" is far too overconfident of a claim to make, especially in context of the yet to be assessed time factor.

Putting it another way, if one acknowledges that time sensitivity may be a domain of said space competition, then that should cause one add a great amount of uncertainty to subtract from "guarantee".

If one doesn't think that time sensitivity is an element of said space competition, then the idea of catch-up being "guaranteed" is far more reasonable and something I am willing to entertain it, as it essentially gives the PRC a lot longer to take its time

I did not consider any time limit because I don't even think China has hit the start timer yet for the beginning of serious efforts to overtake the US in that field. China worked for decades at engines before we got the WS-15. Speed is not guaranteed but my father once likened China's rise to a steamroller; depending on how far the goal is from it, it might get there sooner or later, but nothing can stop it and it will eventually get there and run over its target.

 

[Blitzo]

I did not consider any time limit because I don't even think China has hit the start timer yet for the beginning of serious efforts to overtake the US in that field. China worked for decades at engines before we got the WS-15. Speed is not guaranteed but my father once likened China's rise to a steamroller; depending on how far the goal is from it, it might get there sooner or later, but nothing can stop it and it will eventually get there and run over its target.

If you don't factor in a time limit/element to the competition then I can understand your perspective of saying it's "guaranteed".

(I incidentally do think there is a time element, in fact it is central the multiple domains of competition in emerging technologies from where I sit... But again, that's a topic for a different thread)

 

[Dante80]

In my honest opinion, there are no guarantees in life, and one of the first things people have to learn is that past performance does not guarantee future results either. China is no exception in this, neither is India or the US, for that matter.

I do think we are getting a little too preoccupied with the specific question though. Both your arguments have come across clearly imo.

 

[tokenanalyst]

Yuluka plans to raise no more than 1 billion yuan through a private placement to invest in a precision manufacturing project for core components of rocket engines.​

On June 18, Yuluka released its 2026 plan to issue A-shares to specific targets. The company plans to raise no more than RMB 1 billion, which, after deducting issuance expenses, will be used entirely for the "Precision Manufacturing and Industrialization Project of Core Components for Rocket Engines (Phase I)".

The announcement indicates that the offering will be made to no more than 35 subscribers, with the offering price not lower than 80% of the average trading price of the company's shares over the 20 trading days prior to the pricing benchmark date. The number of shares issued will not exceed 30% of the company's total share capital before this offering, i.e., no more than 221,179,576 shares (inclusive). After the offering, the shares held by the subscribers will be subject to a six-month lock-up period from the date of the offering's completion. This offering plan is subject to approval by the company's shareholders' meeting, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) before it can be implemented.

According to the plan, the implementing entity for this fundraising project will be the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Yuluka (Shandong) Digital Technology Co., Ltd., located in Tai'an, Shandong Province. The total investment for the project is RMB 1,003,572,000, with RMB 1,000,000,000 planned to be funded by the raised funds. The project construction period is expected to be 24 months, and upon completion, it will have a production capacity of 120 sets each of core components for rocket engine thrust chambers and turbopumps.

Yuluka stated that the construction of low-Earth orbit satellite internet has entered a substantial large-scale networking phase, with the GW constellation, Qianfan constellation, and other mega-constellations planning a total of nearly 40,000 satellites, directly driving a simultaneous surge in demand for rocket engines and core components. This fundraising project deeply leverages the company's long-accumulated technological and process capabilities, representing an extension of its existing precision manufacturing capabilities. The company has signed a strategic cooperation agreement with DeepBlue Aerospace, undertaking bulk outsourcing orders for core components of its liquid rocket engines as a priority supplier, covering key categories such as turbopumps and thrust chambers, with a clear path for capacity utilization.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[manqiangrexue]

In my honest opinion, there are no guarantees in life, and one of the first things people have to learn is that past performance does not guarantee future results either. China is no exception in this, neither is India or the US, for that matter.

I do think we are getting a little too preoccupied with the specific question though. Both your arguments have come across clearly imo.

Honestly, I gave that guarantee in the context that the layman usually uses. I guarantee the party's gonna be a blast. I guarantee I'll get it done tonight. I guarantee this is gonna be delicious. Yes, I know that there's no guarantees in life; the effing house might collapse on the party; I could have a stroke and die in my office before I finish it; the pressure cooker could malfunction and explode and we won't be eating anything except shrapnel. I know nobody's guaranteed to live through the next day but that's really not that technical what I was saying.

 

[Dante80]

Honestly, I gave that guarantee in the context that the layman usually uses. I guarantee the party's gonna be a blast. I guarantee I'll get it done tonight. I guarantee this is gonna be delicious. Yes, I know that there's no guarantees in life; the effing house might collapse on the party; I could have a stroke and die in my office before I finish it; the pressure cooker could malfunction and explode and we won't be eating anything except shrapnel. I know nobody's guaranteed to live through the next day but that's really not that technical what I was saying.

I was personally viewing your argument as fanboish, not technical. But it doesn't matter as I said, I think you were pretty clear in what you were saying. I think we should move on.