(Apparently Artemis II is now pushed off the March [1]. Alongside Starship’s next scheduled launch [2].)
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/02/03/nasa-conducts...
As a result, I don't have a lot of optimism about a US landing on the Moon. On the other hand, the James Webb Space Telescope did succeed even though the launch date slipped from 2007 to 2021. So I've learned not to be completely pessimistic.
Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/12/us/bush-sets-target-for-m... https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/us/bush-backs-goal-of-fli... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
I long suspect Blue Origin will be the first US based to touch down as Starship is just too complicated to get it done in the next 2-3 years, but that doesnt mean even the 2028 landing is assured.
Space exploration had been fairly low key for decades but the last decade has been something to see.
If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. They'll keep going, and they have the economic base to expand their program.
I think we're seeing the beginning of a new kind of space race. It's likely to be much longer term and grander in scale over time, as we compete for the best spots on the Moon and the first human landing on Mars in the decades to come.
Between those two the economic effects of invading Iraq came home to roost. We “won” the invasion. But lost the board.
(Why do I use the word ass so often?)
The Soviet Union won the "space race" of course (or perhaps Germany did if you define it as suborbital space flight), it just lost the "man on the moon race". In any case, after losing the man on the moon race, the Soviet Union did not just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. They continued to invest a great deal in their civil, scientific, and military space capabilities after 1969.
Will the Chinese Communist Party similarly collapse in the 2050s? Perhaps not, but they will be going through significant demographic decline from the 2030s; they are increasingly in conflict with the west and with their territorial neighbors; they may become involved in significant military conflicts (e.g., over Taiwan); their current leader has consolidated power and succession could be spicy. So who knows? It's not inconceivable. China would surely continue and continue a space program as Russia has.
However they have their own timetable and milestones , hence going to the moon has already been earmarked with followup misson for a lunar base and further missions already penned in. So less of a race if one party is just doing their own thing.
We see the same dynamic viz Taiwan , western commentariat seeks to impose deadlines and spin rationales when they never materialise. Or the AI race where China keeps churning out OSS models while American labs are in a sel declared 'race' for supremacy.
Oddly enough, the same country also accomplished the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth landing on the moon by humans. So if all goes well, China can be extremely triumphant with their highly anticipated seventh place trophy.
So if US ends up beating China on this, it will all depend if there's something feasible to do next. I'm under impression that everything done in this new space age so far is just a re-do with the cheaper and better technology. SpaceX reaping that but I am not sure if there's any drastically better capabilities. Can't wait for humans on Mars however I don't expect this to be anything more than vanity project.
Xi literally just purged “the country’s top military leader, Gen. Zhang Youxia, and an associate, Gen. Liu Zhenli” [1].
This is the mark of a dictator. Not the Soviet Union at its finest.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/us/politics/china-xi-mili...
> If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth.
This is kind of underselling the situation. China is more stable than the U.S. China is also beating the pants off the U.S. in several sectors and in the ones they're not, they're rapidly catching up.
When China beats the U.S. to the Moon, they will also have surpassed the U.S. in several other sectors as well at the same time, all while having a more stable government and continuing to increase the size of their middle class.
> compete for the best spots
Nothing in outer space treaty that enables first come / first serve squatting. Second mover can always park next door. If anything OST allows joint scientific observation, which allows actors to build right next to each other.
The entire best spot narrative is US trying to bake in landgrab provisions via Artemis Accords (not international/customary law) for safety zones, i.e. landgrab by exclusion - if US build first, someone else can't because it might effect US safety. But reality is non signatories not obliged to honour Artemis. PRC's Artemis, i.e. International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) doesn't have safety zones baked into language yet, but they're going to want to push for some sort of deconfliction as matter of lawfare eventually.
But shit hits fan, and country absolutely need that moon base, everyone who can will be shanty-towning it up in Shackleton, where prime real estate (80-90% illumination windows) are like a few 300m strips. No one is going to settle for shit sloppy seconds because Artemis dictates 2km safety buffer. Exhaust plume from competitor landing next door damage your base? Your fault for not hardening it in first place, building paper mache bases and trying to exclude others under guise of safety is just not going to fly. With all the terrestrial geopolitical implications that entails.
What a horrible attitude.
The current question isn't "is it possible?", it is "who can pull it off today?"
But how is this less stable than even the United States now? Trump has literally purged nearly every single person leading federal agencies and institutions, including law enforcement. He also effectively stacked the Supreme Court with the help of Mitch McConnell, cheating the system to do his bidding.
Antarctica then. (That's fine.)
Missing from both is that Zhang Youxia was the last senior PLA leader to have seen frontline action in the Sino-Vietnamese war.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/latest-purge-hegseth-remove...
Trump has purged dozens of Generals, the head Admiral of the Navy and Coast Guard, head of NSA and Cyber Command and many other top-level officials in the military
and there are only 1,000 women in various special forces (had to pass same physical tests as men) but he is trying to get rid of them all too
Now that is the mark of dictator, agreed
Slow and steady wins the race, or so goes the fable. The China Manned Space Agency, or CMSA, has repeatedly denied any rivalry with the United States akin to the race to the moon in the 1960s. But step by step, one element at a time over a period of decades, it has built a human space program with goals that include landing astronauts on the moon by 2030 and starting a base there in the following years. And—partly because launch dates for NASA’s Artemis III moon landing keep slipping toward that same timeframe—American space leaders are ratcheting up the space race rhetoric.
“We are in a great competition with a rival that has the will and means to challenge American exceptionalism across multiple domains, including in the high ground of space,” said Jared Isaacman, the new head of NASA, in December. “This is not the time for delay, but for action, because if we fall behind—if we make a mistake—we may never catch up, and the consequences could shift the balance of power here on Earth.”
NASA’s Artemis II is almost ready to take its crew on a circumlunar test flight, and the White House has ordered that American astronauts should prioritize a lunar landing by 2028—but could China slip in ahead? How would a Chinese moon flight work? Does the Chinese space program have technology that matches or beats the United States?
RELATED: Inside the Spacecraft That Will Carry Humans Around the Moon
“Nobody [in China] would argue that we are in a space race,” says Namrata Goswami, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who has written extensively about China’s space effort, “but they might be engaged in activity that showcases China as a space power, and they are very serious about getting somewhere first.”
China’s lunar hardware builds on existing engineering. It is based on a multipurpose crew ship called Mengzhou, with capacity for six or seven astronauts, though as few as three may actually fly on a trip from Earth to low lunar orbit. (China-watchers dispense with the word “taikonaut” for its crew members, by the way; the word was coined in 1998 and has not been used by the Chinese government itself. China generally uses the word yuhangyuan, roughly translated as “traveler of the universe.”)
Mengzhou, according to what the CMSA has shown, includes a crew section in the shape of a truncated cone or frustum, with a service module holding power and propulsion systems in the rear. If you squint at it, you’ll see a resemblance to the American Artemis or Apollo spacecraft, the SpaceX Crew Dragon or the yet-to-be-flown European Nyx. Basic aerodynamics make a blunt cone a very efficient shape for safely launching a spacecraft and returning it through Earth’s atmosphere.
The Mengzhou command ship uses parachutes and airbags during a 2025 landing test in northwest China.Wang Heng/Xinhua/Getty Images
Mengzhou is billed as reusable, with an outer heat shield that can be replaced after flight. Landings would take place in China’s western desert. “Coupled with the landing method of airbag cushioning,” says the CMSA in a translated statement, “the spacecraft itself can be better protected from damage and allow the reuse of the spacecraft.”
The ship would be launched by a new heavy-lift Long March 10 booster, one of two used for a given moon mission. The Long March 10, as configured for lunar flight, would stand 92.5 meters high at launch and generate thrust of 2,678 tonnes. (The rocket for Artemis II is more powerful: 3,992 tonnes.)
Mengzhou would leave for the moon after another Long March 10 has launched a lunar landing craft called Lanyue. The two would rendezvous and dock in lunar orbit. Two astronauts would transfer to Lanyue and land on the moon’s surface; Mengzhou would wait for them in orbit for the trip home. Lanyue has a stated mass of 26 tonnes and could carry a 200-kg rover.
Chinese authorities say testing of Lanyue began in 2024. Mengzhou should go on its first robotic flight in 2026; Lanyue in 2027. The first joint test mission is planned for 2028 or 2029, with the first crew going to the moon a year after that.
But to focus on their hardware is to miss out on a major difference between the Chinese and American moon-landing efforts. Artemis is the product of a start-again stop-again debate that’s been going on in the U.S. government since Apollo ended in the 1970s. Goals have shifted repeatedly—often when new presidents took office. Conversely, the Chinese campaign is the outgrowth of a plan called Project 921, first backed by the Chinese Communist Party in 1992. There have been updates and some technical setbacks, but China has pretty much stuck to it ever since.
“What the Chinese space effort has done that others have not is integrate everything,” says Goswami. “It’s not just ‘We’re going to mount a mission.’ It’s bigger than that. They view space as an activity and not missions.”
In other words, she says, each new piece of technology is part of a coordinated effort to create a sustained presence in space, which pays economic, geopolitical and sometimes military dividends. Each part, so far, has fit together with other parts: The first orbiting capsule, called Shenzhou 1 in 1999, led to the first flight by an astronaut, Yang Lewei, on Shenzhou 5 in 2003. That led to space stations (the Tiangong series, starting in 2011), to which Shenzhou crews have been flying since in regular rotation (Shenzhou 22 launched in November). Mengzhou will eventually take over as the workhorse crew vehicle for Earth-orbiting flights.
In the meantime, there has been a steady cadence of robotic lunar orbiters and landers (Chang’e-6 returned the first-ever soil sample from the moon’s far side in 2024), soon to be followed, we’re now told, by Chinese astronauts.
They started slowly, deliberately, with long breaks between missions, only recently picking up speed. At times they have unabashedly looked to other countries for guidance: The Shenzhou crew capsule in the 1990s borrowed heavily from the design of the Russian Soyuz. And several engineers today point out that the Mengzhou-Lanyue plan sounds in many ways like what then-administrator Michael Griffin proposed for NASA’s Constellation program back in 2005—a crewed ship launched by one rocket, a moon lander by another, with astronauts transferring to the lander once they reach lunar orbit . A crew capsule and lunar lander would be too much for one launch, as with the Apollo-Saturn V, because landings would be more ambitious than could be achieved with Apollo’s minimalist Lunar Module, with longer stays and equipment for a lunar base.
“The Chinese are pursuing an architecture a lot like the Apollo architecture was. Which is understandable because their ambitions are to go fast, and Apollo worked,” says a former senior NASA manager who, like several others, asked not to be quoted by name.
“I have a lot of friends who have been watching the Chinese space program for the last couple of decades,” this person continued. “And the one hallmark that we can say is that when China announces dates for things, they typically maintain them.”
And that is why Jared Isaacman talks of urgency at NASA. He has so far generally avoided the word “China” in public. The Chinese, in his words, are usually “our great rival” or “a competitor.” Some NASA veterans say China may turn out to be giving the agency a helpful push to be faster and more agile. They say Apollo succeeded, in large part, because of the race to beat the Soviet Union. A Chinese challenge—even unstated, even illusory—may help Artemis move along.
“We have a great competitor that is moving at absolutely impressive speeds,” Isaacman told NASA employees, “and it’s unsettling to consider the implications if we fail to maintain our technological, scientific, or economic edge in space. And the clock is running.”
This is part 2 of a three-part series, Back to the Moon. Part 1 is about the technology behind NASA’s Artemis II mission. Part 3 will look at how NASA reinvigorated its human spaceflight program.
But regardless, I will congratulate China wholeheartedly on its 7th place, if and when that happens.
More vulnerable. More brittle. Not stable.
They stopped doing more moon missions in the 70s because people lost interest very quickly and nobody cared anymore.
This is an America-centric geopolitical model with zero predictive power.
China annexed Tibet in 1951 [1]. Xinjiang has been fighting colonization from the Qings, Soviets, Nationalists and PRC for over a century.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_China
I don’t either. But the Soviet Union’s space programme lost its steam in the 1970s. (Venus was its last ambitious achievement.)
If China gets bogged down in Taiwan because Xi fired every military expert who might disagree with him, that’s going to cost them the space race. (Same as if America decides to replicate the Sino-Soviet split with Europe over Greenland. We can’t afford a competitive space programme at that point.)
Yes and no. Military readiness and potency doesn’t require liberal democracy. It does require skill and command, and sacking military leaders for political reasons is how powers from Athens to the Soviets screwed themselves.
Im sure China has plenty of observers/volunteers embedded at the Russian side in the SMO making plenty of notes, reports, and get modern warfare experience..
China makes about a third of the world’s stuff [1]. Soviet Union probably peaked around a fifth, though it might have been as high as a fourth.
China is undoubtedly stronger today, absolutely and relative to the U.S., than the Soviets ever were. But history is littered with self-obsessed autocrats ruining a good thing.
Part of what makes the world today frustrating is both America and China are squandering their advantages in remarkably-similar ways, with each regime’s defenders speaking almost identically.
[1] https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-worlds-sole-manufacturi...
Xi was never elected to his position by the people of China.
Being a bad president isn't the same thing as being a dictator.
Nope. It isn’t. Xi has ruled China like a dictator that breaks the tradition of intraparty competition the CCP has had since Mao.
When Xi ended his Wolf Warrior nonsense it seemed to signal a reset. Now we have this nonsense.
> Look at where China is today
Look at where America is today. Both are richer than they’ve ever been. More militarily potent than ever. Both are growing their economies, militaries and territorial ambitions. Both have serious issues, including the gerontocratic oligarchic consolidation of power at the expense of national interests.
And this is just the latest news coming from over there. I won't mention the fact that there are people alive today who couldn't drink from the same fountain as other people because their skin is dark. It was never fucking great.
So if you are American and still talk all this shit about China being a dictatorship and authoritarian this and “purge” that, I wish you would honestly shut the fuck up. Really. You are in no position to have an informed opinion on this because all of your information is force fed down your throat by half a dozen mega companies that are in bed with your regime.
So yeah, I'm sure China has a lot of issues, but if you didn't live there for some time or even speak the language for that matter, just shut the fuck the up.
It was perfectly clear in context that the OP was talking about the new space race where the question is which modern superpower will get there first. It's just hilarious that so many Americans immediately begin talking about how really they got their truly first, in an effort to pretend they couldn't understand and change the question to one which doesn't hurt their ego.
The America which landed on the moon in the 1960s is dead and buried. And the America which said it's going to land on the moon again hasn't done it yet and it's not clear that it can.
Are they being fired for disagreeing with him, or for misconduct.
I mean its hard to tell the difference from a western country, but "Zhang was put under investigation for allegedly forming political cliques, promoting Li Shangfu as defense minister in exchange for large bribes, and leaking core technical data on China's nuclear weapons to the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Youxia
Seems fairly reasonable. Like the US Military would act in the exact same way, if those circumstances are correct.
They have their own Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, consumer electronics, car companies, aircraft carriers, chip companies, manufacturing, etc.
China isn't in wartime, it is in a build up phase and there's perfectly good reasons to dismiss underperforming generals.
Which isn't to say that's what happened here, but China sacking a general as a data point doesn't mean anything without appropriate context.
So if the argument is that sacking a top general implies that China is too unstable to prevail in a future space race I don’t buy it.
Look at the geography. Taiwan is a long, narrow island. All the important parts are in a narrow plain on the west side, facing China. There's only about 20km of depth from the sea.
The war in Ukraine is like fighting over Iowa, one farm at a time. Taiwan is not like that.
The odds of them losing militarily are virtually nil. They could face an insurgency, but there isn't a whole lot of rural Taiwan for insurgents to vanish into and occupying cities is a lot easier absent language and cultural barriers. The could be isolated politically and economically, but realistically China's territorial claim on Taiwan is on far firmer legal and historical ground than many other territorial disputes (eg their control over Tibet).
I don't see the US involving itself directly. What are they going to do, counter-blockade? Start a naval shooting war with a full-on nuclear power on the other side of the world? I don't see Japan backing that either, despite their natural anxiety over the vulnerability of the Ryukyu islands. Support for US bases in Okinawa is ambivalent at best, and while Japan is surely not thrilled about Chinese regional hegemony it's also a reality they've dealt with for thousands of years.
Their resources and capabilities are obviously substantial and sustained (not going anywhere). The USSR had only a few patches of sustained serious economic output, the rest of the time was rolling from one disaster to another, one deprivation after another.
It seems entirely plausible that China getting bogged down in Taiwan wouldn't be enough to deprive them of a run to the Moon. The US was able to sustain NASA during Iraq-Afghanistan, and go to the Moon during the Vietnam War (plus cultural chaos).
That said, China isn't going to get bogged down in Taiwan. It's going to unfortunately be easier than most are imagining. China will ultimately regret not moving on the island sooner when they see how easy it's going to be to take it and how weak the US response will be (the US can't sustain a stand-off with China in that region for more than a few weeks before folding, unless it's willing to go to full war mode economically (which it's not)).
That isn't what the commenter asked. What percentage of stuff in your house is made in China? I would be extremely surprised if it's not more than 33%.
Trump is not a dictator, but not because he was elected, but because of our courts and federal system (and theoretically Congress).
Personalist rule be personalist. Also glad to see you also appear to recognize our "Wolf Warrior" moment.
I think he would have. I think he hated American labor more than he hated foreign communists. If his head were still around in a Futurama Jar to comment on the matter, I think he would be blaming American workers for the consequences of his own policies.
just don't look at the first derivative vs china
Or without Mao being a trash fire of a leader. (Flip side: where would they be without Deng or Zemin, or others in the CCP who put nation above personal interest? The folks Xi is killing because they threaten his personal interests.)
Bit defensive there, eh?
China is an autocracy and Xi is acting in the predictably self-destructive ways a dictator does. The U.S. is heading down that same path, with Trump practically mimicking Xi. N = 2 doesn’t weaken an argument. And folks who lived through the Nazis saying they see similar veins today doesn’t undermine their credibility.
(The hilarity of it is if you take your comment and replace China and America with partisan or pro-American coding, you could pop it out of Hegseth’s office and it would be right at home. Your comment almost seals the point that Xi is all the problems of MAGA, except polling China instead.)
The coloniser-colonised model works in the New World. It’s silly outside it as a general model. (And it misfires completely when comparing America and China. Both were colonies. Both have colonized and hegemonised.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_expedition_to_Tibet_(1...
Don’t underestimate the stopping power of water. Taiwan will be China’s first combined-arms assault with a critical amphibious component.
> war in Ukraine is like fighting over Iowa, one farm at a time. Taiwan is not like that
Wide-open plains are traditionally easier for large armies to conquer than mountains.
Exactly. Everyone keeps acting like it's 50 years ago. China has the world's largest navy and the largest navy almost always wins. They also have a home court advantage. Anyone trying to militarily protect Taiwan would either get the pants beat off of them or suffer starting a world war.
We probably lost basing on the Moon because Bush went into Iraq.
China getting bogged down in Taiwan means more political repression, more restiveness in Xinjiang and—if New Delhi isn’t totally stupid—needing to prop up Pakistan and its strategic fronts in the Himalayas. It also almost certainly means demand destruction in Europe, the EU and ASEAN.
> China isn't going to get bogged down in Taiwan. It's going to unfortunately be easier than most are imagining
The same people saying this today had hot takes on Kyiv falling in ‘21.
China invading Taiwan demilitarized Japan and India. It fundamentally changes its doorstep in ways that incur costs. To the Soviets, Afghanistan. To America, Iraq and possibly Greenland. To China, Taiwan.
(And let’s be clear: this is a vanity project for Xi. Taiwan would have voted, eventually, to peacefully join China if pre-Xi trends continued. But he needed it on his watch. Hence the stupidity.)
The odds of them winding up in a Russia-Ukraine are not nil. (Combined-arms war is hard even without ideological purges.)
America isn’t only outside power investing not only in helping Taiwan fight, but also making any victory pyrrhic. And following that, we’ll see Indian and Japanese containment go into overdrive. (To say nothing of the Philippines or Vietnam.)
I think Xi probably takes Taiwan. But that trades off China’s century of prosperity on economic and diplomatic fronts. That’s the trap the West has been laying, and Xi’s ego and internal constraints almost force him into it.
(Again, if China had showed its pre-Xi patience in the 2010s, we might have seen Taiwan voting to unify right now. Instead he rushed things for personal glory and enrichment.)
Mir yes. Buran was an ambitious project but not achievement.
It offers no predictions, policy prescriptions beyond railing and an infinity of excuses for justifying pretty much anything for the latter and against the former, down to subgroups within each nation.
At the time, everyone was still optimistic that China would eventually become more open and even democratic, that Russia would not regress, etc.
It was still common for electronics and microprocessors to be made in USA well into the 90s. Reagan had nothing to do with the expansion of WTO and trade deficits with China that ballooned under HW, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama.
My metric would be what the country’s population today and weighted populations of the future, if they could weigh in, would choose.
It’s possible to frame ex post facto and impossible to pin down in the present. And it’s inherently subjective and culturally relative. But it’s useful to reason with, including for finding patterns in history.
One pattern is the cost of corruption. If a leader is making billions off their power, they’re putting person about polity. That’s currently true in America [1] and China [2][3]. The difference is America has a chance to fix that in ‘28. China used to rotate leaders. But Xi fucked that up. (Note the language similarity between the above comment and how MAGA defends itself. “Trite bullshit.” Beijing has a hidden MACA problem, it’s just had a tougher time dealing with it because Xi reveres Mao.)
[1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/chinas-preside...
[3] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/20/us-intel-sa...
Ironic, considering his own history as a union leader.
Once again a Nazi is in charge of the western world's most advanced rocket program.
Ok, China is an autocracy, right? Could you explain to me how China conduct elections? Can you explain to me how they approve laws? Do they have a constitution? A justice system? Try answering these questions without much looking up and even if you do, please note the sources. No need to answer me really. Just ask yourself whether you know this or not and how qualified are you to actually label a HUGE state like China with one single heavily charged word.
From what I've been hearing from my buddies still in the NatSec space what matters at this point is the 2028 Taiwanese Election and maybe the 2028 Philippines Election. If neither see a definitive victory for either side in 2028, it gives a face saving off-ramp for the Xi admin to argue they brought the "Taiwan Problem" back on track to the pre-2014 status quo. Of course they could be closeted KMT/TPP supporters but most delivery roadmap's I've been hearing align with a 2028 date.
I agree with you about Xi's impatience but I think you're overestimating the political and economic fallout in the same way that people overestimated the ramifications of China retaking and consolidating its control of Hong Kong. The latter is definitely not politically free in the way it used to be but nor has it fallen into decline or dystopia.
Please note that Kiev not falling after a week in '22 (assuming you misspelled) was pure luck. Russians had extreme advantage in man and firepower. They made a big mistake by using their army against their doctrine - not bombing/shelling targets before attacking (what Russian army was designed for).
But them losing the war (at least the first week) is due to a few lucky dice rolls for us. Us both Europe, but also for me as a Polish expat, knowing my brothers and friends are not dying right now fighting Russian army with all the Ukrainians conscripted into it.
These lucky dice rolls that I can come up from memory: 1. Shooting down one of two military passenger planes with russian Seals that were to take Kiev's Hostomel airport and open an air bridge. The group from the plane that survived did take the airfields, but they couldn't decide on their own to move and take the airports buildings - no distributed command in Russia at that point. Thanks to that, local territorial defence managed to easily kill these elite forces. 2. Fast and generous support from England in form of Javelins that limited Russian heavy equipment advantage. Sorry if I don't credit the countries involved correctly. 3. Fast and generous aid with post soviet equipment from old Warsaw pact countries. These tanks could be used right away as they required no re-training. 4. General incompetence and duty negligence that was systemic in Soviets and is still systemic in Russia. To that we owe cars running out of fuel, or having their tires pop, because, against orders to regularly move them, they all sat with sun damaging one side of the tire so many years, while the responsible for maintenance were drinking vodka and eating pierogi with kielbasa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)#Orbital_fli...
Also is MACA actually MCGA? Or something else? Aren’t there similar trends also in Europe and India?
this is actually skill, bravery, and fortitude
I'd say for the good of the majority of the people.
In other systems only those on top profit (maybe 10-20% max) even if they claim otherwise.
Thus democracy, through competition, aligns the leader's incentive with their people best.