6 ms·
China Moon Mission: Aiming for 2030 lunar landing
- PassingClouds 9mo agoIt 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 9mo agoMaybe 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.
- XorNot 9mo agoAnd as we all know, successful enterprises are always the ones which do something once and then never again for 61 years. /S
- chihuahua 9mo agoThey did it 5 more times. Are the goalposts moving so that you have to do something 7 times before it counts? They stopped doing more moon missions in the 70s because people lost interest very quickly and nobody cared anymore.
- XorNot 9mo agoNo I'm poking fun at the defensive reflex of Americans to get very upset at the notion anyone else will go to the moon. Because in context, who will get their first is the relevant question again because no one has the capability anymore. 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.
- throwui 9mo agoOne was coloniser and another one was a colony. That's why 61y gap
- wtodr 9mo agoBased
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago> One was coloniser and another one was a colony 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_China
- chihuahua 9mo agoI think GP was referring to the fact that the United States is made up of former colonies of Great Britain, but that was such a long time ago, I don't see how it matters for the moon landing.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo agoIt’s a neo-leftist international model that divides everyone into colonizer and colonized nations without particular regard for history or reality. The former are bad and powerful. The latter weak and victims. 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.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- RobotToaster 9mo agoIt was part of China since 1720, it briefly declared independence in 1913 but that was recognised by no foreign nation [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
- kube-system 9mo agoNeither 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 9mo agoThe 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 9mo agoKinda deliberately missing the point there, but go off.
- baxtr 9mo agoAre you talking about Mars? Moon happened a while back.
- tartoran 9mo agoMars is Elon Musk fantasy. Manned missions to Mars are extremely dangerous and pointless at this time.
- raincole 9mo agoGuess what, manned missions to Moons are extremely pointless at this time too.
- tartoran 9mo agoI am sure about that, the Chinese want to land men on the moon so they feel they caught up with the US and Russia, and as pointless as it is it has some kind effect on their national pride. It does involve some risks but compared to landing people on Mars the risks pale in comparison.
- georgeburdell 9mo agoWatch 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
- hdivider 9mo agoThis 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.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo 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-military-purge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/us/politics/china-xi-mili...
- wtodr 9mo agoThis is the same trite bullshit we’ve been hearing for decades. Look at where China is today.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago> the same trite bullshit we’ve been hearing for decades 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.
- SilverElfin 9mo ago
- JumpCrisscross 9mo agoIs 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-artemis-ii-fuel-test-eyes-march-for-launch-opportunity/ https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/02/03/nasa-conducts... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches
- spiritplumber 9mo agoIf another space race is what it takes, then I welcome it.
- kens 9mo agoAs 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-mars-landing.html 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-flight-to-moon-to-establish-base.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/us/bush-backs-goal-of-fli... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
- JumpCrisscross 9mo 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 9mo agoRelevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/2014/ https://xkcd.com/2014/
- cheschire 9mo agoWhich was posted in 2018! https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2014:_JWST_Delays https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2014:_JWST_Delays
- jmyeet 9mo agoSome 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 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1875023335891026324
- nabbed 9mo agoInterestingly, 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 9mo 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 9mo ago> People from small countries usually have only a single viewpoint and are deeply influenced by propaganda. They have almost no independent thought. Yikes.
- Markoff 9mo agoit'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
- roskoe 9mo agoAt 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?
- GMoromisato 9mo agoChina 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.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 9mo agoSpace X's Starship is going to tip over and/or destroy its engines with flying debris.
- expedition32 9mo agoAmerica just doing what they did with the Apollo would be eminently embarrassing. For the Chinese however this is their first rodeo.
- 0x589670FFA 9mo agoRelevant: can you get root with only a [cigarette] lighter? [1]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41765716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41765716
- Markoff 9mo agoLooking 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 9mo agoListen 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.