China Moon Mission: Aiming for 2030 lunar landing

https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-moon-mission-mengzhou-artemis

by rbanffy • 6 months ago

162 172 6 months ago

spectrum.ieee.org

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.

chihuahua4• 6 months 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.

XorNot3• 6 months ago

And as we all know, successful enterprises are always the ones which do something once and then never again for 61 years. /S

throwui• 6 months ago

One was coloniser and another one was a colony. That's why 61y gap

kube-system• 6 months 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• 6 months 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.

anigbrowl5• 6 months ago

Kinda deliberately missing the point there, but go off.

baxtr6• 6 months ago

Are you talking about Mars? Moon happened a while back.

tartoran4• 6 months ago

Mars is Elon Musk fantasy. Manned missions to Mars are extremely dangerous and pointless at this time.

georgeburdell• 6 months 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

hdivider3• 6 months 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.

JumpCrisscross23• 6 months 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...

wtodr2• 6 months ago

This is the same trite bullshit we’ve been hearing for decades. Look at where China is today.

hdivider3• 6 months 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.

ck2• 6 months 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

RobotToaster3• 6 months 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.

smallmancontrov4• 6 months ago

Did the USSR ever manufacture 80% of the stuff in your house?

janalsncm2• 6 months 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.

hbarka• 6 months 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...

bmitc6• 6 months 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.

raincole2• 6 months ago

Which means China is indeed very stable at least when Xi is alive.

weregiraffe• 6 months ago

"Purged top leader" sounds a lot scarier than "a general was fired".

Markoff4• 6 months ago

if I've had to choose between dictator in China and dictator in US, it would be easy choice, at least one of them seems mentally sane

the reason why I left China after living there for years was for sure not politics or who is top military leader

coldtea• 6 months ago

This is the mark of a dictator

Usually the mark of a dictator is being the top millitary leader and taking over a country yourself.

arjie• 6 months ago

Do we already know what the best spots on the Moon are or will that be determined by the early missions doing survey?

hdivider3• 6 months ago

Yes to both I'd say. The south polar region will be contested because of the presence of water-ice and abundant sunlight.

rzerowan• 6 months 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.

nothrowaways• 6 months ago

If we beat the Chinese somehow

What a horrible attitude.

isolatedsystem• 6 months 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.

mrtksn2• 6 months 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.

JKCalhoun3• 6 months 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.

stinkbeetle• 6 months 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.

maxglute• 6 months 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.

JKCalhoun3• 6 months 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.)

JKCalhoun3• 6 months 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?)

bmitc6• 6 months 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• 6 months ago

The US landed on the moon in the 1960s. "Beating to the moon" isn't how I'd call this.

TacticalCoder• 6 months ago

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.

And another big difference is that during the US/Russia space race, the US had a GDP three times the size the GDP of Russia.

Now the US's GDP is only 50% bigger than China's GDP. So nearly 200% bigger vs Russia back then and only 50% bigger vs China now: it's not the same game anymore.

m4rtink• 6 months ago

Also Soviets were not doing that good economically the whole time and it showed also on their space program - when you read the history of their space pgoram from insiders, it was constant hacking to meet almost impossible political deadlines and goals with hardly adequate technology, industry and workforce.

throawayonthe• 6 months ago

Who is we?

JumpCrisscross23• 6 months 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...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches

spiritplumber• 6 months ago

If another space race is what it takes, then I welcome it.

kens• 6 months 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

JumpCrisscross23• 6 months 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• 6 months ago

Relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/2014/

cheschire• 6 months ago

Which was posted in 2018!

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2014:_JWST_Delays

jmyeet• 6 months ago

Some people seem to think the previous space race was about technology. That was all incidental. The Space Race was entirely geopolitical. It was a conflict proxy, an artifact of the Cold War. Any technology was entirely incidental.

The US has been talking about a return to the Moon for 50 years. George W Bush talked about it in 2004. It still hasn't happened. Artemis is limping along but it's entirely pork barrelling for the overly expensive SLS program that really no future.

Some might say SpaceX will come to the rescue. That's... doubtful. Notably, Elon calls the Moon "a distraction" [1]. Why would he do this? It's free money from the government.

The answer is actually pretty simple: Tsarship simply isn't designed for this mission type. Landing a Starship on the MOon is much more complex than, say, the LEM for the Apollo missions or the proposed Chinese lunar lander. If you could, your astronats would be 40 meters off the ground. The big advantage of a "traditional" lunar lander is it can't really topple over. Plus the Apollo LEM also had a very simple engine that could only ever be used once but the big advantage was that it was extremely difficult to fail.

If you exclude all that, Starship is behind schedule and still requires developing technology that they haven't even begun to test, most notably in-orbit refueling.

So why is China doing all this? I suspect it's mainly to develop their own reusable rocket program with a side of national pride. China is very concerned with their national security interests. Being able to launch things cheaply is a critical national security interest.

Still, the mission architecture of China's mission (from what I've read) is still fairly complex, requiring two vehicles to rendezvous in lunar orbit. That's also why I think the primary goal is orbital launch capacity.

[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1875023335891026324

nabbed• 6 months ago

Interestingly, when I was in Taiwan (not China, I understand, but in the general area) in 2012 to visit our Taipei office, the subject of the Apollo moon landings came up during lunch. All the Taiwanese workers at the table (about 3 or 4) said that the moon landing was a hoax.

A few years later, a few people from our Taipei office, whom I did not meet during my trip, transferred to our US office. So I asked them what they thought of the moon landings. They also said the landings were a hoax.

Not a perfect sampling, but still interesting.

I wonder what the average person in China thinks of the Apollo moon landings. Or maybe it's just that many non-Americans in general think that the moon landings are a hoax.

yanhangyhy• 6 months ago

Taiwan All the Taiwanese workers at the table (about 3 or 4) said that the moon landing was a hoax.

People from small countries usually have only a single viewpoint and are deeply influenced by propaganda. They have almost no independent thought.

I wonder what the average person in China thinks of the Apollo moon landings

we believe in science. most people believe it's true. it's just a shame how USA become today. we saw both ourselves and America some Rome kind of Empire. we like it before, we just feel sorry it will collapse and cannot even do something it did beofre.

also something related to USSR: We also believe that the Soviet Union achieved accomplishments in space exploration no less significant than those of the United States; it is just that Western propaganda has deliberately downplayed them.

margalabargala• 6 months ago

People from small countries usually have only a single viewpoint and are deeply influenced by propaganda. They have almost no independent thought.

Yikes.

Markoff4• 6 months ago

it's hard to argue why it is not a hoax if last man on the Moon was supposed to be there in 1972, now it's 2026, it's 54 years since allegedly someone landed on the Moon, surely technology advanced to put there at least one man in those 50 years

so I'm looking forward to China putting man on the Moon finally, bonus points if it will be first woman ever, since as we discussed yesterday with my daughter I had to tell her woman was not yet on the Moon because fighter jet pilots were only men those 50 years ago when they were supposed to land on the Moon

mrbukkake• 6 months ago

Moon landings stopped because the US stopped spending something like 2% of GDP on them. "surely technology advanced to put there at least one man in those 50 years" does technological advancement preclude the need to allocate resources? This is about the level of critical thinking I expect from a conspiracy retard

Jack000• 6 months ago

None of my relatives who were alive in 1969 have ever heard of the US moon landings. The information was totally suppressed at the time and in the intervening decades they simply had no reason to seek it out.

The younger generations think it’s a hoax but are more uncertain because they know that any information about the event is likely to be propaganda

roskoe• 6 months ago

At least people will stop countering any criticism of the US with "Well, it's the only country that put a man on the moon too!" For the rest... is there anything humans can do up there robots can't do better and cheaper?

GMoromisato2• 6 months ago

China has a chance of landing humans on the moon before Artemis, but if it does, it will be because America's space program is more ambitious, not less.

Lanyue, which masses 26 metric tons, can land two (maybe four?) astronauts on the moon plus a 200 kg rover. Space X's Starship is designed to land 100 tons on the moon--that's 100 tons of payload.

Let's say you want to build a small moon base, one that's maybe 100 tons (ISS is 400 tons). How many Lanyue launches would be necessary? Maybe 10? Now remember that each launch is expendable. It will cost China between $500 and $1 billion per launch. That's $5 to $10 billion for a moon base, not counting the cost of the base itself!

Starship is designed to be fully re-usable. Their goal is to get each launch to cost $10 to $20 million total. To land 100 tons on the moon, they will have to refuel in orbit by launching between 10 and 20 tanker flights. That means one trip to the moon costs $200 to $400 million maximum. Even assuming that Starship underperforms and can only land 50 tons on the moon, we still only need two launches for a total cost of $800 million maximum.

That is literally 10 times cheaper than Chinese capabilities; alternatively, it is 10x the payload at the same cost.

Of course, there are two major developments that Space X still needs to demonstrate: rapid re-use (to bring the cost down) and in-space refueling. And that's why it's taken so long.

But if/when they pull it off, it won't really matter if China lands first. The American program is much more ambitious.

kevin_thibedeau• 6 months ago

Space X's Starship is going to tip over and/or destroy its engines with flying debris.

expedition322• 6 months ago

America just doing what they did with the Apollo would be eminently embarrassing.

For the Chinese however this is their first rodeo.

GMoromisato2• 6 months ago

America is planning to land a 50 meter tall spaceship with 100 tons of payload. That is far beyond Apollo (7 meters, ~1 ton payload).

wasmainiac• 6 months ago

But if/when they pull it off, it won't really matter

Are we in another Cold War Space Race? What matters here? Being better at science? Engineering? Space tourism?

Gud2• 6 months ago

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

0x589670FFA• 6 months ago

Relevant: can you get root with only a [cigarette] lighter?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41765716

Markoff4• 6 months ago

Looking forward to finally someone landing human on the Moon eventually after half century since last alleged US landing.

Bonus points if it's gonna be woman finally, good role model for girls.

hackboyfly• 6 months ago

Listen am not a conspiracy theorist. But haven’t we done this before? If so, why does it seem like we haven’t?

We already know how to do this, right? Right!?

I am genuinely curious.

China Moon Mission: Aiming for 2030 lunar landing

Related Stories