Chinese astronauts make rocket fuel and oxygen in space

Media coverage & perception of Chinese advances

• Several comments argue Chinese scientific progress is underreported in English media because coverage is driven by Western institutions’ press releases and existing relationships.
• Others say US outlets downplay Chinese successes to preserve a narrative of Western technological superiority, while some counter that US elites actually benefit from portraying China as a formidable rival.
• A few note that China has its own station and lunar ambitions while US programs like Artemis struggle, feeding political narratives in both directions.

Transparency, verification, and skepticism

• Multiple participants say Chinese agencies release self-congratulatory, low-detail announcements, more akin to narrative management than open science.
• Mandarin speakers confirm that even in Chinese-language channels, technical transparency is limited.
• Some highlight China’s reputation for paper mills and exaggerated claims and argue skepticism is warranted, especially when an experiment seems more like a performance (doing in orbit what could be done on Earth).
• Others respond that the orbital work is framed as “verification” in the actual Chinese release and likely follows extensive ground testing.

Propulsion limits and “perpetual” travel

• Commenters stress that making fuel and oxygen in space does not remove the need for reaction mass; rockets must still eject mass to accelerate.
• Ion drives are discussed as much more efficient but still mass-consuming. Reactionless drives are dismissed as incompatible with Newton’s laws.
• Ideas like Bussard ramjets, solar sails, and “swimming” through the sparse interstellar medium are mentioned as mostly theoretical or impractical at current densities.

Artificial photosynthesis vs plants & biofuels

• The article’s analogy to plant photosynthesis leads to a long tangent: why not engineer plants to make rocket or automotive fuel?
• People note we already use plants for fuels (corn ethanol, biodiesel, palm oil, sugarcane ethanol), but economic, environmental, and land-use downsides are severe.
• Plants are said to be far less efficient than solar panels at converting sunlight into usable energy per area; synthetic fuels made from solar electricity and CO₂ may be better in many cases.

Broader political and social arguments

• The thread devolves at points into heated comparisons of US and Chinese authoritarianism, incarceration rates, immigration, racism, and protest suppression.
• Claims and counterclaims here are strongly contested and often ideological; the relationship to the underlying space experiment is indirect.

Meta & cultural notes

• Some nostalgia appears for “dangerous” old chemistry sets and hands-on experimentation.
• One comment laments that the US is “eating itself alive” instead of pursuing bold scientific projects like this.