军坛网友比较中美俄欧各家航天科技实力，展望未来中俄乃至与印度间的航天合作前景（一）
正文翻译
plawolf
Manned lunar mission hasn't been approved yet?
I have a feeling it has been approved, but they are just holding off on announcing it because it is actually an area of real import, so they don’t want to give NASA any more leverage to get more funding for their own moon base plans.
（中国的）载人登月计划还没有官宣吗？
我有一种感觉，该计划事实上已经被批准了，但他们有意推迟官方发布时间，因为这真的是一个关系重大的领域，他们不想过早刺激NASA，进而让NASA立即用它当筹码申请到更多资金来开展自己的月球基地计划。
Manned lunar mission hasn't been approved yet?
I have a feeling it has been approved, but they are just holding off on announcing it because it is actually an area of real import, so they don’t want to give NASA any more leverage to get more funding for their own moon base plans.
（中国的）载人登月计划还没有官宣吗？
我有一种感觉，该计划事实上已经被批准了，但他们有意推迟官方发布时间，因为这真的是一个关系重大的领域，他们不想过早刺激NASA，进而让NASA立即用它当筹码申请到更多资金来开展自己的月球基地计划。
评论翻译
escobar
Will be great if it happen!!!
能最终实现的话就太了不起了！！！
anzha
Or, perhaps, like most things with the Chinese space program, they are holding off until they have firm dates before announcing. They seem pretty responsible about that.
又或者，和多数中国航天计划一样，他们只是要等到足够有把握的那一天才会宣布。他们一向对任何“官宣”都相当负责。
Or, perhaps, like most things with the Chinese space program, they are holding off until they have firm dates before announcing. They seem pretty responsible about that.
又或者，和多数中国航天计划一样，他们只是要等到足够有把握的那一天才会宣布。他们一向对任何“官宣”都相当负责。
hkbc
The Chinese and Russians have unveiled their Lunar Research Base road map that calls for it to be crewed after 2036, with phases and series of missions see China, Russia reveal roadmap for international moon base
Its pretty methodical rather than 'build it they will come' or ' We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard'
People have already walked on the Moon and if their past approaches are anything to go by the Chinese space program is pragmatic I don't think they'll just waste time and money doing things for show 'look how great we are we sent a man to the moon too!'. Rather if they do land on the moon it will be for a reason, testing something or doing something that needs humans
For some perverse reason its the Americans that seem to have a chip on their shoulder about having something to prove and makes everything into a race, oscillating between we are the greatest to we're so behind! Maybe losing the detailed blueprints for your moon rockets will do that to you, who knows!
The Chinese talk about a century of humiliation but it wasn't all plain sailing in the past few decades for Russia they may want to cast their demons aside by finally doing what the Soviets didn't manage half a century earlier, sooner rather than later and dictate a quicker pace!
Intl Lunar Research Station program, GLEX2021. All phases open to intl coop.
中国和俄罗斯之前一起公布的国际月球科研站（ILRS）路线图计划不就是咯？计划目标是要在2036年建成，随后派驻航天员。该计划全系列及分阶段任务，可以去找中国、俄罗斯各自公布的路线图详细资料。
我想说，该计划条理很清晰，而不是那种“我们先开干，别人迟早也会来”或者“我们选择这样做，就是因为它够困难”式的项目。
我知道中国的航天计划一向务实。既然已经有人上过月球，我不认为中国人会把时间和金钱浪费在“看我们多了不起，我们也把一个人送上月球啦！”这种事情上。相反，如果他们要登陆月球，就一定有别的原因——测试某些东西，或是要进行某些必须由人来完成的任务。
美国人似乎总有种扭曲的心态，如同走钢丝一样总是绷紧了神经，总想证明些什么，总想把一切搞成一场竞赛，又总在“啊，我们太伟大啦”“啊，我们全面落后啦”之间来回摇摆！或许真的是弄丢了登月火箭的图纸，搞得他们如此神神叨叨？谁知道呢……
中国人忘不了他们的百年屈辱，而俄罗斯近几十年也绝非一帆风顺，他们可能正迫切希望抛弃身上的枷锁和诅咒，去完成苏联在半个世纪前无法完成的壮举——那就宁早午晚，加快脚步吧！
国际月球科研站（ILRS）计划，GLEX2021。各个阶段均向国际合作开放：
The Chinese and Russians have unveiled their Lunar Research Base road map that calls for it to be crewed after 2036, with phases and series of missions see China, Russia reveal roadmap for international moon base
Its pretty methodical rather than 'build it they will come' or ' We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard'
People have already walked on the Moon and if their past approaches are anything to go by the Chinese space program is pragmatic I don't think they'll just waste time and money doing things for show 'look how great we are we sent a man to the moon too!'. Rather if they do land on the moon it will be for a reason, testing something or doing something that needs humans
For some perverse reason its the Americans that seem to have a chip on their shoulder about having something to prove and makes everything into a race, oscillating between we are the greatest to we're so behind! Maybe losing the detailed blueprints for your moon rockets will do that to you, who knows!
The Chinese talk about a century of humiliation but it wasn't all plain sailing in the past few decades for Russia they may want to cast their demons aside by finally doing what the Soviets didn't manage half a century earlier, sooner rather than later and dictate a quicker pace!
Intl Lunar Research Station program, GLEX2021. All phases open to intl coop.
中国和俄罗斯之前一起公布的国际月球科研站（ILRS）路线图计划不就是咯？计划目标是要在2036年建成，随后派驻航天员。该计划全系列及分阶段任务，可以去找中国、俄罗斯各自公布的路线图详细资料。
我想说，该计划条理很清晰，而不是那种“我们先开干，别人迟早也会来”或者“我们选择这样做，就是因为它够困难”式的项目。
我知道中国的航天计划一向务实。既然已经有人上过月球，我不认为中国人会把时间和金钱浪费在“看我们多了不起，我们也把一个人送上月球啦！”这种事情上。相反，如果他们要登陆月球，就一定有别的原因——测试某些东西，或是要进行某些必须由人来完成的任务。
美国人似乎总有种扭曲的心态，如同走钢丝一样总是绷紧了神经，总想证明些什么，总想把一切搞成一场竞赛，又总在“啊，我们太伟大啦”“啊，我们全面落后啦”之间来回摇摆！或许真的是弄丢了登月火箭的图纸，搞得他们如此神神叨叨？谁知道呢……
中国人忘不了他们的百年屈辱，而俄罗斯近几十年也绝非一帆风顺，他们可能正迫切希望抛弃身上的枷锁和诅咒，去完成苏联在半个世纪前无法完成的壮举——那就宁早午晚，加快脚步吧！
国际月球科研站（ILRS）计划，GLEX2021。各个阶段均向国际合作开放：
escobar
Will be great if it happen!!!
能最终实现的话就太了不起了！！！
siegecrossbow
What can they bring to the table?
他们（俄罗斯）到底能贡献什么？
What can they bring to the table?
他们（俄罗斯）到底能贡献什么？
Richard Santos
Maybe space nuclear technology. that’s something the soviet unx had a lot of experience, and china none. A permanently manned base on the moon may have to be nuclear powered.
Russia also indisputably have far more experience with long duration human stay in space and under zero G.
besides that, I don’t see russia has any skill advantage. she certainly has no money advantage.
也许是太空核技术吧。在这一领域苏联时期就已经积累了大量经验，可中国却仍然欠缺。月球上的永久驻人基地可能必须使用核动力。
毫无疑问，俄罗斯在人类长期太空生活、零重力环境等方面的经验也要丰富得多。
除此之外，我想俄罗斯就没有什么技术优势了。它显然也无法提供什么资金上的贡献。
Maybe space nuclear technology. that’s something the soviet unx had a lot of experience, and china none. A permanently manned base on the moon may have to be nuclear powered.
Russia also indisputably have far more experience with long duration human stay in space and under zero G.
besides that, I don’t see russia has any skill advantage. she certainly has no money advantage.
也许是太空核技术吧。在这一领域苏联时期就已经积累了大量经验，可中国却仍然欠缺。月球上的永久驻人基地可能必须使用核动力。
毫无疑问，俄罗斯在人类长期太空生活、零重力环境等方面的经验也要丰富得多。
除此之外，我想俄罗斯就没有什么技术优势了。它显然也无法提供什么资金上的贡献。
plawolf
I think the most valuable input the Russians can provide is detailed information on what long term zero or low G living does to the human body and ways to try to counter and/or mitigate that.
That is knowledge gained from decades of operations and at great cost to the early cosmonauts. If China can get the fruits of all that experience without needing to learn it all themselves the hard way, then that would be a worthwhile contribution by the Russians.
我认为俄罗斯人能提供的最有价值的东西，也就是关于长期零重力或低重力状态下生活对人体的影响、以及如何对抗和/或减轻这种影响的详细信息了。
这是从几十年的实践经验里获取的知识，也是早期宇航员付出了巨大代价的结果。如果中国能从所有这些经验信息中获益，而不再需要自己一点点艰苦地从头摸索，那将会是俄罗斯作出的真正贡献。
I think the most valuable input the Russians can provide is detailed information on what long term zero or low G living does to the human body and ways to try to counter and/or mitigate that.
That is knowledge gained from decades of operations and at great cost to the early cosmonauts. If China can get the fruits of all that experience without needing to learn it all themselves the hard way, then that would be a worthwhile contribution by the Russians.
我认为俄罗斯人能提供的最有价值的东西，也就是关于长期零重力或低重力状态下生活对人体的影响、以及如何对抗和/或减轻这种影响的详细信息了。
这是从几十年的实践经验里获取的知识，也是早期宇航员付出了巨大代价的结果。如果中国能从所有这些经验信息中获益，而不再需要自己一点点艰苦地从头摸索，那将会是俄罗斯作出的真正贡献。
anzha
I believe most of that is written up in published scientific literature at this point, tbh.
说实话，我相信这些东西大都已经发表在各种科学文献里了吧。
I believe most of that is written up in published scientific literature at this point, tbh.
说实话，我相信这些东西大都已经发表在各种科学文献里了吧。
plawolf
A lot of it sure, but never all of it. The most significant and useful findings always tend to have a way of being classified and banned from being just put out there for the whole world to see.
The effects of prolonged zero and low G environments on the human body is fair well published and understood, but that information is of very limited use. I would be amazed if the Soviets and Russians didn’t try all sorts of drugs, treatments and technologies to try to counter of mitigate those ill effects beyond mere exercise. That’s the most useful and significant bits of information, the solutions they came up with to those problem. Even information on failures would be useful to help China avoid repeating those mistakes and/or wasting time and resources on dead-end approaches.
是的，有很多肯定发表了，但绝不是全部。最重要、最有价值的发现，总会被以某种方式筛选出来，并被禁止向全世界发布。
长期的低重力/零重力环境对人体的影响，这些信息已经广泛发表，并被世人熟知，但它们的实用价值非常有限。我绝对相信苏联人、后来的俄罗斯人对此尝试过各种药物、物理治疗方式，实验过大量技术以对抗或减轻太空环境对宇航员造成的不良影响。这才是最有用最重要的，是他们针对那些“已发表信息”找到的解决方案。哪怕是失败的尝试，也有助于帮助中国避免重蹈覆辙/走进死胡同从而浪费不必要的时间和资源。
A lot of it sure, but never all of it. The most significant and useful findings always tend to have a way of being classified and banned from being just put out there for the whole world to see.
The effects of prolonged zero and low G environments on the human body is fair well published and understood, but that information is of very limited use. I would be amazed if the Soviets and Russians didn’t try all sorts of drugs, treatments and technologies to try to counter of mitigate those ill effects beyond mere exercise. That’s the most useful and significant bits of information, the solutions they came up with to those problem. Even information on failures would be useful to help China avoid repeating those mistakes and/or wasting time and resources on dead-end approaches.
是的，有很多肯定发表了，但绝不是全部。最重要、最有价值的发现，总会被以某种方式筛选出来，并被禁止向全世界发布。
长期的低重力/零重力环境对人体的影响，这些信息已经广泛发表，并被世人熟知，但它们的实用价值非常有限。我绝对相信苏联人、后来的俄罗斯人对此尝试过各种药物、物理治疗方式，实验过大量技术以对抗或减轻太空环境对宇航员造成的不良影响。这才是最有用最重要的，是他们针对那些“已发表信息”找到的解决方案。哪怕是失败的尝试，也有助于帮助中国避免重蹈覆辙/走进死胡同从而浪费不必要的时间和资源。
getready
Even if they bring nothing to the table. Politically I feel it is still beneficial to show solidarity and cooperation between the two powers in space exploration. If not a subtle feck you to US
就算他们什么也提供不了，仅从政治上讲，我认为两国在太空探索领域展现团结合作仍是有益的——就算这并不代表某种微妙的态度，即“美国，去你*的！”
Even if they bring nothing to the table. Politically I feel it is still beneficial to show solidarity and cooperation between the two powers in space exploration. If not a subtle feck you to US
就算他们什么也提供不了，仅从政治上讲，我认为两国在太空探索领域展现团结合作仍是有益的——就算这并不代表某种微妙的态度，即“美国，去你*的！”
Richard Santos
Russia’s previous value to multilateral space programs had been a fleet of relatively efficient Soviet bequeathed space launchers and the soyuz capsule. Both of which have been matched and then surpassed by NASA, Elon Musk, and the Chinese space agency. Russia is not in any financial shape to regain lost ground.
For Russia the demon is poverty, which is not so easy to cast aside.
On purchase power parity basis, Russian economic output is barely larger than that of Indonesia and only 40% the size of India’s, 15% the size of China’s. Ability to invest on Large national capital programs such as space program depends on the overall output of the economy.
俄罗斯曾经对国际空间项目还是有相当价值的，主要是因为他们拥有一整支相对高效的、从苏联继承的航天发射器+联盟号飞船团队。但现如今，这两项技术遗产都已经被NASA、中国国家航天局乃至埃隆·马斯克先后赶上并超越。现如今，俄罗斯的财政状况又令他们想收复失地已无任何可能。
对俄罗斯来说，贫穷才是他们最大的诅咒，而贫穷可没那么容易“抛弃”掉。
按购买力平价计算，俄罗斯的经济总产值才稍稍高于印度尼西亚，仅为印度的40%，中国的15%。而大型国家资本项目（如太空项目）的投资能力恰恰取决于经济的总体产出。
Russia’s previous value to multilateral space programs had been a fleet of relatively efficient Soviet bequeathed space launchers and the soyuz capsule. Both of which have been matched and then surpassed by NASA, Elon Musk, and the Chinese space agency. Russia is not in any financial shape to regain lost ground.
For Russia the demon is poverty, which is not so easy to cast aside.
On purchase power parity basis, Russian economic output is barely larger than that of Indonesia and only 40% the size of India’s, 15% the size of China’s. Ability to invest on Large national capital programs such as space program depends on the overall output of the economy.
俄罗斯曾经对国际空间项目还是有相当价值的，主要是因为他们拥有一整支相对高效的、从苏联继承的航天发射器+联盟号飞船团队。但现如今，这两项技术遗产都已经被NASA、中国国家航天局乃至埃隆·马斯克先后赶上并超越。现如今，俄罗斯的财政状况又令他们想收复失地已无任何可能。
对俄罗斯来说，贫穷才是他们最大的诅咒，而贫穷可没那么容易“抛弃”掉。
按购买力平价计算，俄罗斯的经济总产值才稍稍高于印度尼西亚，仅为印度的40%，中国的15%。而大型国家资本项目（如太空项目）的投资能力恰恰取决于经济的总体产出。
gelgoog
#50 Russia 29,485
#96 Indonesia 12,882
#122 India 7,333
The Indians have a hard enough time getting toilets. You are comparing a bit over a billion people with a bit over a hundred million people.
维基百科全球按购买力平价计算人均GDP排名（单位美元）：
#50 Russia 29,485
#96 Indonesia 12,882
#122 India 7,333
The Indians have a hard enough time getting toilets. You are comparing a bit over a billion people with a bit over a hundred million people.
维基百科全球按购买力平价计算人均GDP排名（单位美元）：
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
#50 俄罗斯，2.9485万
#96 印尼，1.2882万
#122 印度，0.7333万
印度人连修厕所都能遇到困难。你不能拿一亿多人的总产出去跟十多亿人的比。
#50 俄罗斯，2.9485万
#96 印尼，1.2882万
#122 印度，0.7333万
印度人连修厕所都能遇到困难。你不能拿一亿多人的总产出去跟十多亿人的比。
Richard Santos
You can invest a lot more in a space program if your citizens are twice as poor, but you have 4 times more of them.
但如果你的国民人均所得是别人的一半，但你的总人口是别人的四倍，那更有能力在太空项目中投入更多的绝对是你。
You can invest a lot more in a space program if your citizens are twice as poor, but you have 4 times more of them.
但如果你的国民人均所得是别人的一半，但你的总人口是别人的四倍，那更有能力在太空项目中投入更多的绝对是你。
gelgoog
You can, at the expense of added misery to an already miserable people. Compare the Indian and Russian space programs. The Indians have to purchase their technology from France and Russia. Their space launchers use French and Russian designed engines. GSLV's Vikas engine is a copy of decades old French Viking engine used in Ariane 4. Upper stage engine was based on technical transfer of Russian KVD-1 engine. The Indonesians don't even both having their own launchers. Russia has its own space industry which can conduct its own leading edge research and they have a gargantuan technical personnel pool India and Indonesia could only dream about.
你是有这个“能力”，但代价是让一个本已足够悲惨的民族更加痛苦。对比一下吧，印度人不得不向法国和俄罗斯购买技术，他们的火箭使用的是法国和俄罗斯设计的发动机，印度GSLV火箭（全名“地球同步卫星运载火箭”）的Vikas发动机其实就是阿丽亚娜4号上几十年前使用的法国维京发动机的复制品。上一级发动机则是基于俄罗斯KVD-1发动机技术转让设计的。印尼甚至都没有自己的火箭。而俄罗斯有自己的航天工业，可以进行自主前沿研究，他们有一个庞大的技术人才库，这可是印度或者印尼做梦都不敢想的。
You can, at the expense of added misery to an already miserable people. Compare the Indian and Russian space programs. The Indians have to purchase their technology from France and Russia. Their space launchers use French and Russian designed engines. GSLV's Vikas engine is a copy of decades old French Viking engine used in Ariane 4. Upper stage engine was based on technical transfer of Russian KVD-1 engine. The Indonesians don't even both having their own launchers. Russia has its own space industry which can conduct its own leading edge research and they have a gargantuan technical personnel pool India and Indonesia could only dream about.
你是有这个“能力”，但代价是让一个本已足够悲惨的民族更加痛苦。对比一下吧，印度人不得不向法国和俄罗斯购买技术，他们的火箭使用的是法国和俄罗斯设计的发动机，印度GSLV火箭（全名“地球同步卫星运载火箭”）的Vikas发动机其实就是阿丽亚娜4号上几十年前使用的法国维京发动机的复制品。上一级发动机则是基于俄罗斯KVD-1发动机技术转让设计的。印尼甚至都没有自己的火箭。而俄罗斯有自己的航天工业，可以进行自主前沿研究，他们有一个庞大的技术人才库，这可是印度或者印尼做梦都不敢想的。
weig2000
International Lunar Research Station. Note that the offcial name of the project is not called China-Russia Lunar Research Station. They're actively recruiting other international partners.
“国际月球科研站”,请注意，这一项目的正式名称不是“中俄月球科研站”。他们正在积极吸引其他国际合作伙伴。
International Lunar Research Station. Note that the offcial name of the project is not called China-Russia Lunar Research Station. They're actively recruiting other international partners.
“国际月球科研站”,请注意，这一项目的正式名称不是“中俄月球科研站”。他们正在积极吸引其他国际合作伙伴。
Richard Santos
Russia is playing a game. If Putin manage to extract a promise from Biden that the US and NATO will respect Russia’s primacy in the former Czarist sphere of influence, Russia will immediately drop collaboration with China in any field that makes the US nervous.
Russia and Putin sees this, and wants to leverage the fact that in the long run Russia’s capacity to reduce American global influence is much less than those of the chinese.
俄罗斯只是在玩政治手段。如果普京能从拜登那里得到某种承诺，如美国和北约将会尊重俄罗斯的势力范围，那么俄罗斯可能会立即停止与中国在任何会令美国紧张的领域的合作。
俄罗斯和普京都清楚，并希望利用的一个事实就是：从长远来看，俄罗斯对美国全球影响力的威胁远远低于中国。
Russia is playing a game. If Putin manage to extract a promise from Biden that the US and NATO will respect Russia’s primacy in the former Czarist sphere of influence, Russia will immediately drop collaboration with China in any field that makes the US nervous.
Russia and Putin sees this, and wants to leverage the fact that in the long run Russia’s capacity to reduce American global influence is much less than those of the chinese.
俄罗斯只是在玩政治手段。如果普京能从拜登那里得到某种承诺，如美国和北约将会尊重俄罗斯的势力范围，那么俄罗斯可能会立即停止与中国在任何会令美国紧张的领域的合作。
俄罗斯和普京都清楚，并希望利用的一个事实就是：从长远来看，俄罗斯对美国全球影响力的威胁远远低于中国。
taxiya
Why give up something if one can have both? On the other hand if Russia can only get one or the other, why do you think US can offer any better than China? The supposed "Czarist sphere" is only eastern Europe, it is a peanut compared with the possible gain from the whole world by partnering with China. What the US could have offered to Russia might be just like the 80 vials of vaccine to Trinidad and Tobago of 1.4 million people.
如果你能两者兼得，又为什么要放弃其中一个？换个角度看，如果俄罗斯只能二选一，只能得到其中一个，你凭什么认为美国可以提供的比中国更好？所谓的俄罗斯势力范围（沙皇圈）不过是东欧的一小块；与中国合作却能从全世界获得收益。比较起来，前者不过小菜一碟。更何况美国真正愿意给俄罗斯的，可能就像“给特立尼达和多巴哥140万人口的80瓶疫苗”那么多。
Why give up something if one can have both? On the other hand if Russia can only get one or the other, why do you think US can offer any better than China? The supposed "Czarist sphere" is only eastern Europe, it is a peanut compared with the possible gain from the whole world by partnering with China. What the US could have offered to Russia might be just like the 80 vials of vaccine to Trinidad and Tobago of 1.4 million people.
如果你能两者兼得，又为什么要放弃其中一个？换个角度看，如果俄罗斯只能二选一，只能得到其中一个，你凭什么认为美国可以提供的比中国更好？所谓的俄罗斯势力范围（沙皇圈）不过是东欧的一小块；与中国合作却能从全世界获得收益。比较起来，前者不过小菜一碟。更何况美国真正愿意给俄罗斯的，可能就像“给特立尼达和多巴哥140万人口的80瓶疫苗”那么多。
weig2000
@Richard Santos
That's a very American perspective. Russia has a lot of good reasons to be on friendly terms with China: trade, investments, security being the largest neighbor with each other. Russia might tone down its anti-US rhetoric, but Russia will always act as a great power, not subserviently to anyone including the US.
Americans of all sorts have been trying hard to figure out ways to drive wedges between Russia and China, with all kinds naive and laughable excuses, say Siberia, China's 4th aircraft carriers. But the root cause of all the problems lie in the fact that the US capacity to preserve its empire increasingly does not mesh well with reality. The solution is to reduce overreach, or change itself, not to travel around the world for a senile President with rhetoric and empty statements to create imaginary enemies and rally the increasingly unwilling coalition.
@Richard Santos，你的观点太“美国化”了。俄罗斯有很多很好的理由与中国保持友好关系：贸易上的、投资上的、安全上的、互为最大邻国等等。俄罗斯可能会缓和其反美态度，但它将永远像一个大国那样行事，不会屈从于包括美国在内的任何国家。
各式各样的美国人，一直在努力想办法、找各种荒唐可笑的借口挑拨中俄关系，如西伯利亚问题、中国第四艘航母带来的威胁等等。但一切问题的根源在于，美国维护其庞大帝国的能力越来越与现实不匹配了。真正的解决之道是减少过度反应行为，或者彻底改变自己，而不是让一个老迈的总统满世界跑，用各种花言巧语和空洞言论去创造一个假想敌，拉拢越来越不情不愿的“盟友”们。
@Richard Santos
That's a very American perspective. Russia has a lot of good reasons to be on friendly terms with China: trade, investments, security being the largest neighbor with each other. Russia might tone down its anti-US rhetoric, but Russia will always act as a great power, not subserviently to anyone including the US.
Americans of all sorts have been trying hard to figure out ways to drive wedges between Russia and China, with all kinds naive and laughable excuses, say Siberia, China's 4th aircraft carriers. But the root cause of all the problems lie in the fact that the US capacity to preserve its empire increasingly does not mesh well with reality. The solution is to reduce overreach, or change itself, not to travel around the world for a senile President with rhetoric and empty statements to create imaginary enemies and rally the increasingly unwilling coalition.
@Richard Santos，你的观点太“美国化”了。俄罗斯有很多很好的理由与中国保持友好关系：贸易上的、投资上的、安全上的、互为最大邻国等等。俄罗斯可能会缓和其反美态度，但它将永远像一个大国那样行事，不会屈从于包括美国在内的任何国家。
各式各样的美国人，一直在努力想办法、找各种荒唐可笑的借口挑拨中俄关系，如西伯利亚问题、中国第四艘航母带来的威胁等等。但一切问题的根源在于，美国维护其庞大帝国的能力越来越与现实不匹配了。真正的解决之道是减少过度反应行为，或者彻底改变自己，而不是让一个老迈的总统满世界跑，用各种花言巧语和空洞言论去创造一个假想敌，拉拢越来越不情不愿的“盟友”们。
Richard Santos
Unfortunately Russia’s space program is currently an underfunded mess that is still largely subsisting on its soviet bequeathed basic hardware and knowhow. At this moment I would say except in some area of rocket engine and space nuclear technology, and in raw experience of human in space, Russia is otherwise behind China in all fields of space capability, and they are making no real headway, while China is and is thus pulling farther ahead. So while this cooperation is good publicity here and now, it probably will be only of marginal value to the Chinese if it ever comes time to show and tell.
What can they bring to the table?
不幸的是，如今俄罗斯的太空计划资金严重不足，基本上只能依赖苏联遗留下来的设备和技术勉强维持生存。此时此刻，我想说，除了火箭发动机和空间核技术等少数几个领域，以及人类太空活动的原始经验外，俄罗斯已经在所有领域落后于中国。他们多年没有取得真正的进步，而中国正把他们甩得越来越远。因此，尽管这一合作目前看似很不错的宣传噱头，但如果真正开展，对中国人来说（与俄罗斯的合作）可能如同鸡肋。
他们到底能为项目带来什么？
Unfortunately Russia’s space program is currently an underfunded mess that is still largely subsisting on its soviet bequeathed basic hardware and knowhow. At this moment I would say except in some area of rocket engine and space nuclear technology, and in raw experience of human in space, Russia is otherwise behind China in all fields of space capability, and they are making no real headway, while China is and is thus pulling farther ahead. So while this cooperation is good publicity here and now, it probably will be only of marginal value to the Chinese if it ever comes time to show and tell.
What can they bring to the table?
不幸的是，如今俄罗斯的太空计划资金严重不足，基本上只能依赖苏联遗留下来的设备和技术勉强维持生存。此时此刻，我想说，除了火箭发动机和空间核技术等少数几个领域，以及人类太空活动的原始经验外，俄罗斯已经在所有领域落后于中国。他们多年没有取得真正的进步，而中国正把他们甩得越来越远。因此，尽管这一合作目前看似很不错的宣传噱头，但如果真正开展，对中国人来说（与俄罗斯的合作）可能如同鸡肋。
他们到底能为项目带来什么？
taxiya
As much as or more than ESA can bring to the table of the NASA moon program.
至少不比欧空局（ESA）参与NASA的月球计划，所能提供的少吧。
As much as or more than ESA can bring to the table of the NASA moon program.
至少不比欧空局（ESA）参与NASA的月球计划，所能提供的少吧。
Richard Santos
ESA may lack a man rated launch capability and a space capsule, but otherwise can come close to NASA in most other basic infrastructural, production and mission equipment capabilities.
ESA also has had an independent deep space exploration capability since 1980s, and unlike russia, did not let that capability atrophy.
If you really analyze ESA capability in deep space flight, in most aspects ESA is at least equal to what china has demonstrated up to now, and can claim considerable more experience and depth than the chinese in many of these aspects.
欧空局目前或许没有载人发射能力、也没有自己的太空舱，但在其它大多数太空基础设施、生产设备和任务设备上都更接近NASA。
1980年代以来，欧空局一直有独立的深空探索能力，没有像俄罗斯那样自我阉割掉。
如果你认真分析欧空局在深空宇航能力，它的大多数技术层面至少与中国迄今所展示的能力相当，甚至可以说比中国人经验更丰富、技术储备更深。
ESA may lack a man rated launch capability and a space capsule, but otherwise can come close to NASA in most other basic infrastructural, production and mission equipment capabilities.
ESA also has had an independent deep space exploration capability since 1980s, and unlike russia, did not let that capability atrophy.
If you really analyze ESA capability in deep space flight, in most aspects ESA is at least equal to what china has demonstrated up to now, and can claim considerable more experience and depth than the chinese in many of these aspects.
欧空局目前或许没有载人发射能力、也没有自己的太空舱，但在其它大多数太空基础设施、生产设备和任务设备上都更接近NASA。
1980年代以来，欧空局一直有独立的深空探索能力，没有像俄罗斯那样自我阉割掉。
如果你认真分析欧空局在深空宇航能力，它的大多数技术层面至少与中国迄今所展示的能力相当，甚至可以说比中国人经验更丰富、技术储备更深。
taxiya
But NASA can do everything that ESA can offer and do better. Using blatant words, ESA is useless and useful to NASA as much as Roscosmos is to CNSA.;) The key point here is NOT what these secondary partners can exclusively provide, it is what they can do to share the burden both money and time/labor wise.
但欧空局能做的任何事NASA都能做到，而且能做得更好。不客气地说，欧空局对NASA毫无用处，或许就和俄联邦航天局（ROSCOSMOS）之于中国国家航天局（CNSA）一个样；）但关键不在这两个“第二合作方”能力如何，而是他们能提供多少资金、时间和人力。
But NASA can do everything that ESA can offer and do better. Using blatant words, ESA is useless and useful to NASA as much as Roscosmos is to CNSA.;) The key point here is NOT what these secondary partners can exclusively provide, it is what they can do to share the burden both money and time/labor wise.
但欧空局能做的任何事NASA都能做到，而且能做得更好。不客气地说，欧空局对NASA毫无用处，或许就和俄联邦航天局（ROSCOSMOS）之于中国国家航天局（CNSA）一个样；）但关键不在这两个“第二合作方”能力如何，而是他们能提供多少资金、时间和人力。
siegecrossbow
ESA has landed on Titan, which NASA hasn’t accomplished.
欧空局（的惠更斯号探测器）已经在“泰坦（即土卫六）”上着陆了，这NASA可没做到
ESA has landed on Titan, which NASA hasn’t accomplished.
欧空局（的惠更斯号探测器）已经在“泰坦（即土卫六）”上着陆了，这NASA可没做到
taxiya
Yet NASA has landed on Mars multiple times while ESA crashed on it. I don't think we should go to the path of comparing piece by piece, but focus on the capabilities which is that ESA does not have something that NASA can not live without.
然而，就当欧空局的火星探测器坠毁时，NASA已经多次成功登陆火星。我想我们还是别做逐条比较了，应该把重点放在总的能力上——那就是，欧空局提供不了任何在NASA看来不可或缺的技术。
Yet NASA has landed on Mars multiple times while ESA crashed on it. I don't think we should go to the path of comparing piece by piece, but focus on the capabilities which is that ESA does not have something that NASA can not live without.
然而，就当欧空局的火星探测器坠毁时，NASA已经多次成功登陆火星。我想我们还是别做逐条比较了，应该把重点放在总的能力上——那就是，欧空局提供不了任何在NASA看来不可或缺的技术。
gelgoog
ESA's members aren't interested in having a fully independent space program. Haven't been ever since the Berlin Wall collapsed when the Columbus space station and the Hermes space shuttle were canned. It is not a problem of technology but political and financial will.
欧空局的成员国们对发展欧洲独立的太空计划兴趣缺缺。柏林墙倒塌后，原本的哥伦布号空间站和赫尔墨斯空天飞行器计划（又名“使神工程”）就相继废止了。与其说是技术问题，倒不如说是政治和财政意愿问题。
ESA's members aren't interested in having a fully independent space program. Haven't been ever since the Berlin Wall collapsed when the Columbus space station and the Hermes space shuttle were canned. It is not a problem of technology but political and financial will.
欧空局的成员国们对发展欧洲独立的太空计划兴趣缺缺。柏林墙倒塌后，原本的哥伦布号空间站和赫尔墨斯空天飞行器计划（又名“使神工程”）就相继废止了。与其说是技术问题，倒不如说是政治和财政意愿问题。
Richard Santos
@taxiya
no, maybe NASA CAN do everything better (i don’t think NASA actually can, the Europeans are definitely ahead in many aspects of space science. space travel is not all for showing off, really heavy weight basic as well as applied science should come into play), but ESA CAN do many things more than good enough, and when the ESA funds them, NASA gets them without having to fund it itself.
to put it bluntly, for a space program whose main obxtive is to show off, a partner who doesn’t offer anything it can’t do itself would be of limited value. but for a space program whose main obxtive is to do a lot of science, a partner who doesn’t offer anything it can’t do itself would still offer great value in enabling it to do more science per launch than it could afford to fund itself.
The differences between the collaboration between ESA and NASA on the one hand, and the proposed one between rusocosmos and CNSA are:
1. ESA has a formidable space scientific capability that does not exactly overlap American space science capability. I don’t think Rosocomos offer much space science capability.
2. ESA offers an array of manufacturing capabilities that equal or surpass what US can immediately deploy. The US is not necessarily interested in investing the capability of it can trade for its products with the ESA. Russia may offer a limited number of manufacturing capability that the chinese do not have. But china is always interested in matching other’s capabilities and Russia may not be interested in giving it away.
3. ESA’s capacity to fund its contribution to collaborative efforts dwarves that of Russia.
4. Both ESA and Rosocosmos had a recent track record of mission failures, but Rosocosmos’s failure tend to be of a more basic and elementary nature, so the underlying quality of its contribution is more open to doubt.
@taxiya，不，或许NASA每件事都能做得更好（我倒并不觉得NASA真有这么厉害，欧洲人在空间科学的许多方面绝对是领先的）。太空探索不全是那些吸引眼球的项目，真正的重量级基础科学和应用科学也都至关重要。欧空局可以做很多事情，而且有欧空局提供资助，很多能力NASA自己不用花钱就能得到了。
说白了，对于那种用来显摆炫耀的太空项目，如果一个合作伙伴不能提供任何本方无法单独完成的东西，那这个伙伴的确就没什么价值。但对于一个把主要目标锁定在大量科学研究的太空计划而言，即便合作伙伴能提供的本方都有，该伙伴仍然可以发挥巨大作用——比如，每一次发射任务，都能进行比本方独自负担成本时更多的科研项目。
但要注意，欧空局与NASA间的合作，相比俄联邦航天局和中国国家航天局间拟议中的合作计划，是有区别的：
1、欧空局拥有强大的空间科学实力，并且与美国的相关领域能力并不完全重合。但我认为俄联邦航天局这方面能力有限；
2、欧空局能贡献的一系列设备制造能力，至少相当于甚至超过了美国可以在短时间内“新增部署”的制造力——况且美国不一定对它通过贸易就能从欧空局得到的那部分产品制造能力感兴趣。俄罗斯能提供的中国不具备的制造能力已经很有限，何况中国又始终对追赶别人有而自己缺乏的那部分能力非常积极——俄罗斯却可能对放弃这部分有限的优势心存疑虑；
3、欧空局为合作项目提供资金的能力显然不是俄罗斯能比的；
4、欧空局和俄联邦航天局最近都有发射失败的记录，但俄罗斯遭遇的失败往往是出在更“基础级”的错误，因此其对合作项目的贡献度下限，理应遭到质疑。
@taxiya
no, maybe NASA CAN do everything better (i don’t think NASA actually can, the Europeans are definitely ahead in many aspects of space science. space travel is not all for showing off, really heavy weight basic as well as applied science should come into play), but ESA CAN do many things more than good enough, and when the ESA funds them, NASA gets them without having to fund it itself.
to put it bluntly, for a space program whose main obxtive is to show off, a partner who doesn’t offer anything it can’t do itself would be of limited value. but for a space program whose main obxtive is to do a lot of science, a partner who doesn’t offer anything it can’t do itself would still offer great value in enabling it to do more science per launch than it could afford to fund itself.
The differences between the collaboration between ESA and NASA on the one hand, and the proposed one between rusocosmos and CNSA are:
1. ESA has a formidable space scientific capability that does not exactly overlap American space science capability. I don’t think Rosocomos offer much space science capability.
2. ESA offers an array of manufacturing capabilities that equal or surpass what US can immediately deploy. The US is not necessarily interested in investing the capability of it can trade for its products with the ESA. Russia may offer a limited number of manufacturing capability that the chinese do not have. But china is always interested in matching other’s capabilities and Russia may not be interested in giving it away.
3. ESA’s capacity to fund its contribution to collaborative efforts dwarves that of Russia.
4. Both ESA and Rosocosmos had a recent track record of mission failures, but Rosocosmos’s failure tend to be of a more basic and elementary nature, so the underlying quality of its contribution is more open to doubt.
@taxiya，不，或许NASA每件事都能做得更好（我倒并不觉得NASA真有这么厉害，欧洲人在空间科学的许多方面绝对是领先的）。太空探索不全是那些吸引眼球的项目，真正的重量级基础科学和应用科学也都至关重要。欧空局可以做很多事情，而且有欧空局提供资助，很多能力NASA自己不用花钱就能得到了。
说白了，对于那种用来显摆炫耀的太空项目，如果一个合作伙伴不能提供任何本方无法单独完成的东西，那这个伙伴的确就没什么价值。但对于一个把主要目标锁定在大量科学研究的太空计划而言，即便合作伙伴能提供的本方都有，该伙伴仍然可以发挥巨大作用——比如，每一次发射任务，都能进行比本方独自负担成本时更多的科研项目。
但要注意，欧空局与NASA间的合作，相比俄联邦航天局和中国国家航天局间拟议中的合作计划，是有区别的：
1、欧空局拥有强大的空间科学实力，并且与美国的相关领域能力并不完全重合。但我认为俄联邦航天局这方面能力有限；
2、欧空局能贡献的一系列设备制造能力，至少相当于甚至超过了美国可以在短时间内“新增部署”的制造力——况且美国不一定对它通过贸易就能从欧空局得到的那部分产品制造能力感兴趣。俄罗斯能提供的中国不具备的制造能力已经很有限，何况中国又始终对追赶别人有而自己缺乏的那部分能力非常积极——俄罗斯却可能对放弃这部分有限的优势心存疑虑；
3、欧空局为合作项目提供资金的能力显然不是俄罗斯能比的；
4、欧空局和俄联邦航天局最近都有发射失败的记录，但俄罗斯遭遇的失败往往是出在更“基础级”的错误，因此其对合作项目的贡献度下限，理应遭到质疑。
Nutrient
Let's not minimize the potential Russian contribution. In the International Space Station, Russia's Zarya module ("Dawn") provides all the life support, the navigation, and the propulsion needed to keep the station in orbit. Without the US bits, the ISS would still be a working space station. Without Zarya, ISS would be dead.
So it would be presumptious to disregard the Russian contribution to a moon colony. As @plawolf mentioned, their decades of experience in low or zero g will be valuable. Their life support hardware has proven to be extremely reliable, and that will be important when the lunar base is 300,000 km from help.
Also not to forget launch rate. With Russia's involvement, twice as many launches will be possible than China could probably do by itself. The extra launches will be very important for supplying a large lunar base.
我们也不必低估俄罗斯（在未来中俄航天合作中）的潜在贡献。俄罗斯的曙光号功能货舱（Zarya）为国际空间站上提供了在轨运行所需的所有生命支持、导航和推进功能。没有了美国的模块，国际空间站仍能是一个可工作空间站；但如果没有了曙光舱，国际空间站就废了。
因此，认为俄罗斯对未来的月球基地不会有多大贡献的想法，太想当然了。正如前面@plawolf讲到的，他们数十年来在低重力-零重力领域的经验积累就非常宝贵；他们的生命维持硬件设备也已经被证明十分可靠——当月球基地距离最近的救援地点也有30万公里时，这一点尤其重要。
同样不能忽视发射频率的问题。有俄罗斯的参与，两国总的发射频率可能是中国独自搞项目的两倍——对于一个大型月球基地来说，多出来的这些发射次数将是非常重要的。
Let's not minimize the potential Russian contribution. In the International Space Station, Russia's Zarya module ("Dawn") provides all the life support, the navigation, and the propulsion needed to keep the station in orbit. Without the US bits, the ISS would still be a working space station. Without Zarya, ISS would be dead.
So it would be presumptious to disregard the Russian contribution to a moon colony. As @plawolf mentioned, their decades of experience in low or zero g will be valuable. Their life support hardware has proven to be extremely reliable, and that will be important when the lunar base is 300,000 km from help.
Also not to forget launch rate. With Russia's involvement, twice as many launches will be possible than China could probably do by itself. The extra launches will be very important for supplying a large lunar base.
我们也不必低估俄罗斯（在未来中俄航天合作中）的潜在贡献。俄罗斯的曙光号功能货舱（Zarya）为国际空间站上提供了在轨运行所需的所有生命支持、导航和推进功能。没有了美国的模块，国际空间站仍能是一个可工作空间站；但如果没有了曙光舱，国际空间站就废了。
因此，认为俄罗斯对未来的月球基地不会有多大贡献的想法，太想当然了。正如前面@plawolf讲到的，他们数十年来在低重力-零重力领域的经验积累就非常宝贵；他们的生命维持硬件设备也已经被证明十分可靠——当月球基地距离最近的救援地点也有30万公里时，这一点尤其重要。
同样不能忽视发射频率的问题。有俄罗斯的参与，两国总的发射频率可能是中国独自搞项目的两倍——对于一个大型月球基地来说，多出来的这些发射次数将是非常重要的。
很赞 11
收藏