China Moon Mission: Aiming for 2030 lunar landing (spectrum.ieee.org)
94 points by rbanffy 5 hours ago
hdivider 4 hours ago
This space race is different for one core reason: China is more stable than the Soviet Union was in the 1960s.
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.
mrtksn 2 hours ago
IMHO the previous race ended because there wasn't that much to be achieved with the technology at hand at that time. They just pivoted to space stations, a space(!) with low hanging fruit.
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.
JKCalhoun an hour ago
You might be right. But a lunar telescope, lunar bases, lunar-orbiting station… Lots still to do within the Earth's sphere of influence.
mrtksn 40 minutes ago
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago
> China is more stable than the Soviet Union was in the 1960s
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...
smallmancontrov 4 hours ago
Did the USSR ever manufacture 80% of the stuff in your house?
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago
NoMoreNicksLeft 4 hours ago
iancmceachern 2 hours ago
hdivider 4 hours ago
I agree there is a lot of chaos over there, and numerous challenges. But I don't see China collapsing anytime soon, nothing like the Soviet Union. It's going to be a long-term space race.
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago
raincole 36 minutes ago
Which means China is indeed very stable at least when Xi is alive.
RobotToaster 4 hours ago
There's a better article about it in the WSJ of all places https://archive.is/48m3F
Missing from both is that Zhang Youxia was the last senior PLA leader to have seen frontline action in the Sino-Vietnamese war.
dragonelite 3 hours ago
janalsncm 3 hours ago
Xi appointed himself president for life in 2018, almost six years ago. China wasnt exactly a bastion of liberal democracy before then either. Sacking a top general is basically par for the course.
JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago
hbarka 2 hours ago
Our dear leader just purged the Pentagon and other hallowed agencies, what does that make us?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/latest-purge-hegseth-remove...
dyauspitr 2 hours ago
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago
bmitc 39 minutes ago
Purge seems like a strong word from what I just read. There definitely seems to be actual and power plays going on on his side. It's not exactly because he was out there doing the best for people.
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.
wtodr 4 hours ago
This is the same trite bullshit we’ve been hearing for decades. Look at where China is today.
tartoran 4 hours ago
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago
baxtr 4 hours ago
subw00f 4 hours ago
ck2 4 hours ago
btw just for comparison over in the US
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
chrisco255 2 hours ago
adventured 4 hours ago
rzerowan 2 hours ago
Theresa though i read somewhere that i tend to agree with - with the level of tech and space experience that China currently is capable of , they could possibly launch a return mission as early as next year(if they so chose).
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.
JKCalhoun an hour ago
In the same way Space Race 1.0 kicked the US into putting engineering at the forefront, I look forward to Space Race 2.0. Even if China kicks our (U.S.) ass, I'm be hoping for a sea-change in our attitudes (in fact, the US getting their asses handed to them might be the best medicine we need right now).
(Why do I use the word ass so often?)
maxglute an hour ago
TBH pretty retarded to eat up American spacerace 2.0 / rivalry / competition framing when space is like ~0.1% of GDP spend in both US/PRC. At least bump up to half a percent for a proper space race spending. Of course true purpose of framing is likely to keep US space spent at 0.1% instead of 0.01%.
> 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.
JKCalhoun an hour ago
"Nothing in outer space treaty that enables first come / first serve squatting. Second mover can always park next door."
Antarctica then. (That's fine.)
arjie 4 hours ago
Do we already know what the best spots on the Moon are or will that be determined by the early missions doing survey?
hdivider 4 hours ago
Yes to both I'd say. The south polar region will be contested because of the presence of water-ice and abundant sunlight.
bmitc an hour ago
> This space race is different for one core reason: China is more stable than the Soviet Union was in the 1960s.
> 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.
glimshe 43 minutes ago
The US landed on the moon in the 1960s. "Beating to the moon" isn't how I'd call this.
stinkbeetle an hour ago
> If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth.
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.
nothrowaways 2 hours ago
>If we beat the Chinese somehow
What a horrible attitude.
isolatedsystem 2 hours ago
You might be being a tad uncharitable to the GP. Competition isn't an inherently bad thing. Many engineering endeavours (and engineers) have been made better by the crucible of competition. The first space race, Formula 1, even the competition between the different experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, for example.
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago
Is there a good, consolidated technical description of their mission architecture?
(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...
kens 2 hours ago
As a historical note, the first President Bush proposed in 1989 to establish a base on the Moon and send astronauts to Mars by 2020. In 2004, the second President Bush set a goal of returning to the Moon by 2020 and going to Mars in the 2030s, starting the Constellation program. In 2017, Trump announced that astronauts would return to the Moon, with the Artemis III project now planning a landing no earlier than 2028.
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
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago
> In 2004, the second President Bush set a goal of returning to the Moon by 2020 and going to Mars in the 2030s, starting the Constellation program. In 2017, Trump announced that astronauts would return to the Moon, with the Artemis III project now planning a landing no earlier than 2028
Between those two the economic effects of invading Iraq came home to roost. We “won” the invasion. But lost the board.
gus_massa 2 hours ago
Relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/2014/
PassingClouds 4 hours ago
It is interesting to see who will get there first. China seems to be right on target with their schedule, but the US is being more ambitious, this also looks a bit more fragile on execution.
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.
chihuahua 4 hours ago
Maybe my date calculations are off, but I think the people that landed on the moon on July 20, 1969 got there first. According to my calculations, if China lands people on the moon in 2030, that will be approximately 61 years later. The people that got there 61 years earlier can be reasonably said to have gotten there first.
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.
kube-system 4 hours ago
Neither the current space race nor the cold-war era space race have anything to do with planting a flag in a history book. They are geopolitical dick measuring contests of contemporary power.
The current question isn't "is it possible?", it is "who can pull it off today?"
nancyminusone 3 hours ago
The people from 61 years ago are either extremely old or dead. Of the other three-quarters of the world population born after December 19, 1972, none have made it there; it will be a first for them.
anigbrowl an hour ago
Kinda deliberately missing the point there, but go off.
XorNot 4 hours ago
And as we all know, successful enterprises are always the ones which do something once and then never again for 61 years. /S
chihuahua 4 hours ago
throwui 4 hours ago
One was coloniser and another one was a colony. That's why 61y gap
chihuahua 4 hours ago
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago
wtodr 4 hours ago
baxtr 4 hours ago
Are you talking about Mars? Moon happened a while back.
tartoran 4 hours ago
Mars is Elon Musk fantasy. Manned missions to Mars are extremely dangerous and pointless at this time.
raincole 30 minutes ago
georgeburdell 4 hours ago
Watch China’s announcements year to year and you’ll see their plans do change. Long March 9 has gone through enough design iterations that I wouldn’t even call it the same rocket anymore
spiritplumber 4 hours ago
If another space race is what it takes, then I welcome it.