China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

RGClark · 2024-08-31 07:29:18

The sh*t just got real: according to the NASA OIG, Artemis IV, the first landing mission, can’t happen until 2029 because that’s how long it’ll take to get the needed mobile launch tower, ML-2 ready:

If you thought NASA SLS was a nightmare, wait until you see this! PLUS, no Artemis 4 until 2029!
#space #nasa #moonmission
https://youtu.be/-i0EH1ibCVg?si=NllGFepDET88aIBv

But China plans to land men on the Moon before 2030:

China plans to put astronauts on the moon before 2030.
News
By Sharmila Kuthunur published May 31, 2023
https://www.space.com/china-moon-landing-before-2030

Then China beating us back to the Moon is not just a theoretical possibility. It is now a REAL possibility.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-09-01 00:53:54)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-01 14:07:15

Hi Bob:

Let's just say I am unsurprised!

GW

kbd512 · 2024-09-02 01:50:20

2030 is only 6 years away.

Where is the flight-tested hardware to demonstrate how physical reality aligns with their stated ambitions?

CNSA needs at least three flight tests of their lunar rocket, at least two flight tests of their capsule and lander design to evaluate performance throughout the entire flight regime, and none of this proposed hardware has ever flown in space. After all the basic elements required for a lunar mission have successfully flown, they need at least one full dress rehearsal mission to practice all of the basic mission requirements. This includes TLI, EOR or LOR, descent to the lunar surface, ascent back to lunar orbit, TEI, reentry heat shield testing, and splashdown / capsule recovery. Unless all of this work is well under way, I don't think 2029 to 2030 is a feasible time window for their first crewed lunar mission. I presume they're using at least two rockets, one for their lander and the other for their capsule.

I don't doubt they can do this, but I question the probability of them maintaining their stated timeline since none of this hardware has flown in space. I'll put more stock in their timeline after at least one mission element has successfully flown in space- rocket, capsule, or lander.

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-02 06:20:24

This topic provides an opportunity for NewMars members to post any updates they may find that fit the criteria kbd512 has laid out in Post #3.

There are several online bloggers who may cover parts of the subject from time to time.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-02 12:14:21

I'm unsure whether China or the US can do anything crewed very fast, although China seems less hog-tied bureaucratically. I've seen nothing out of either country that is credible as a means to land crewed on the moon any time soon.

As for a "race" to the moon, there is nothing official about anything, and I see no reason to race. We've already been there, although we need to go back. China is wanting to go there. And that's OK, if they as a nation behave themselves.

Something they are most definitely NOT doing in the South China Sea. Ah, such are autocrats!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-09-02 12:17:31)

Calliban · 2024-09-02 12:51:04

I am the last person that would defend the autocratic Chinese government. But can you imagine a situation where the Chinese had naval bases in the Carribean, and a chain of powerful client states surrounding the US coast, with the expressed intention of containing US power? That is what the US is doing to China. The US has bases all over the world. Worrying about a few chinese artificial islands in the south China sea does sound a lot like hypocracy.

Or am I being naive and unfair? I am quite aware that there is much about the situation that I don't understand. But the optics don't look good where I am sitting.

kbd512 · 2024-09-02 17:32:56

Calliban,

At a point in time not so long ago, those far-flung US military bases existed because neighbor was unable to leave neighbor alone. Our military leadership has done everything except begging on their knees to leave, but every time word reaches the local government that the US is leaving, we're asked to stay and reminded of our mutual defense obligations, so we stay.

If you're curious about the difference between US Navy patrols and Chinese Navy patrols, we don't intentionally ram fishing boats, spray them with water cannons, or seize their boats and ships for the "crime" of fishing within their own internationally recognized territorial waters. There are numerous examples of the Chinese Navy doing things like that to all the countries surrounding them, to include Viet Nam and North Korea. Their own naval forces lack the power projection capability to chase off the Chinese, so they inevitably call us, and then we run our destroyers and aircraft carriers through, and the Chinese leave after making a bunch of pointless threats.

We now have our aircraft carriers and other capital ships making regular port visits to Haiphong, Viet Nam, to discourage the Chinese from attacking or threatening them with their naval vessels. While I fully recognize how bizarre that course of events truly is, we've dedicated our Navy to keeping sea lanes open for free trade and travel. The Indian Navy and Australian Navy are powerful enough to ward off aggressive acts from the Chinese Navy, but they're about the only ones over there. The Japanese Navy is very reluctant to do anything at all outside of Japanese territorial waters, for obvious reasons.

Can you imagine the sentiment towards the US Navy if the US was routinely using its Navy to harass and ram merchant and fishing vessels of other nations, merely because they were in-transit between ports, or otherwise operating lawfully within their own territorial waters?

We get called-in because regardless of how China / Russia / North Korea / Iran's Navy "feels" about the mere existence of a ship somewhere in the ocean, they know they're not going to win if they decide to pick a fight with the US Navy. They all talk a good game until the game ends and business begins.

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 09:46:01

I second Kbd512's motion. There is a vast difference between what we do and what the Chinese do (and several other bad actors).

I understand the "optics" of our having allies and bases all around China. We had to do the same thing with Russia after WW2, and we still need it today, given Putin as its insane autocratic leader. "Optics" do NOT tell the whole story. Most often, they are used to issue lies and propaganda.

You'll notice the Chinese do NOT use use water cannons or ramming against US warships. That would be an act of war, rating a sinking of the offender. If I were commander-in-chief, I would specify exactly that in the operating rules. If I were a ship's captain, I would defend my ship very vigorously, and I have believed in tactical overkill since the Cold War. Orders or not, I would sink the bastard.

I hope the current president already has done that, but I'm unsure, because such orders are classified, never shown to the public (which is as it should be). There's a small navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that certainly needs to be sunk on sight, along with the pirates.

But as long as Iran suffers no consequences for what its proxies do, outfits like the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah (and more besides) will continue to cause death and destruction. Iran funds them, arms them, and gives them their marching orders, allowing for the fact that terrorists are an unruly bunch who will sometimes kill without being ordered to.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-09-03 09:50:36)

RGClark · 2024-09-03 11:24:19

Robert Zubrin has noted that the SuperHeavy/Starship can do Moon and Mars missions with no refueling flights nor SLS required if given a smaller 3rd stage that would actually serve as the lander, a mini-Starship if you will.

Dr. Robert Zubrin - Mars Direct 2.0 - ISDC 2019.

https://youtu.be/9xN1rqhRSTE?si=8unKEkYOxl4gQT0i

Then it is important to keep in mind SpaceX has an existing stage that can serve for the purpose in the fully man-rated Falcon 9 upper stage. But you need the higher payload capacity of the expendable at ca. 200 to 250 tons to be able to do it in a single launch. This is quite remarkable when you consider Elon has said the launch of the SH/SS only costs ca. $100 million.

Then the implications is if the upcoming IFT-5 in a few more days were stripped of reusability systems so that it’s payload capacity was 200 to 250 tons, then that launch itself with a Falcon 9 upper stage as a Earth departure stage/lander could do a demonstration mission for single launch missions to the Moon or Mars.

We could have Moon or Mars flights now at costs we are spending for flights to the ISS.

Robert Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-09-03 11:28:22)

kbd512 · 2024-09-03 11:36:55

GW,

Multiple Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) warships have attempted to ram American warships, even back when I was still in the Navy 20 years ago. When you're physically aboard the American warship they attempted to ram, manning the rails in your dress whites, you tend to notice these things, or at least you tend to notice the evasive maneuvers your ship has taken to avoid a collision while you're trying to peacefully dock in a port that the Chinese government has invited you to dock in. We would not go to China unless we were specifically invited to do so by their government. Maybe someone in the PLAN didn't get the memo, or maybe they were told to do what they did.

While in port, our Captain and Admiral (the Commander of 7th Fleet) hosted parties aboard our ship (USS Blue Ridge) for the visiting foreign dignitaries and military members. I don't recall all the details, and I only remember seeing PLAN officers (maybe there were some senior PLAN enlisted floating around that I don't remember, but I only interacted with their officers), some members of the Chinese Communist Party (I never spoke with any of them), and some British people who were either British government or ex-pats. Back in the day, you kept talking and working with allies and adversaries alike, for the express purpose of avoiding misunderstandings and war. Even back then, however, it was clear that their intentions were hostile. I don't think anything's fundamentally changed since then.

As for your comments about "sinking the bastards", we do not attempt to initiate or escalate hostilities, unless our enemies have already fired upon American ships and we have received authorization to fully respond, beyond the usual, "If you're the direct target of a hostile act, you have every right to defend your ship." Part of actually "keeping the peace" on the high seas is going out of your way to NOT behave in an aggressive or belligerent manner.

While I certainly appreciate your sentiment on this matter, and at times would even agree with your recommended course of action as a reminder to every other military about who is actually carrying the biggest stick, after they choose to behave in an openly hostile manner, I don't think very many people here or elsewhere would appreciate the results, because what you're advocating doing is a better than average way to start another war. Fighting is a last resort. If someone pulls a stupid stunt while hazarding their warship, that doesn't mean we get to behave as foolishly as they do, "just because we can".

We do routinely run down and kill terrorists and pirates who randomly attack everyone (like the Houthis firing upon American, Chinese, Indian and even Iranian oil tankers), because if we don't then other nations will respond in ways that are unlikely to be helpful.

Should the US Navy act as the "Global Coast Guard"?

Probably not, but that's what our civilian leadership thinks we're supposed to do, so that's what we actually do, because we obey all lawful orders, whether we personally agree with them or not.

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 12:04:47

Kbd512:

I can't disagree with anything you said. I just know that if I were Captain, and a Chinese ship actually succeeded in ramming my ship, I would sink him. In little pieces, if possible.

GW

kbd512 · 2024-09-03 14:27:06

GW,

I think that however justified you felt, you'd still get court-martialed. Beyond that, we'd probably be involved in a shooting war with our largest trading partner. Right or wrong, the US and China still need to minimally cooperate with each other at this moment in time, if only to avoid a shooting war and crashing our economies. That is the dilemma the US Navy faces when dealing with the hostile behavior of various other naval forces. That is also why we don't typically put hot-heads in charge of our warships. If you're not mature enough to consider all involved lives before escalating hostilities, then you're not fit for command. Even when you have the most powerful warship afloat, a little humility goes a long way towards avoiding unrecoverable errors.

We make a concerted effort to only sail our ships where they're wanted, but we're also fully expected to maintain freedom of navigation and trade, because we signed our name to a treaty mandating that we act as a globally-interested third party which would prevent war or minimize the damage from war, piracy, and terrorism, rather than engaging in it as a willing participant.

The sheer volume of outer space really ought to be sufficient to avoid belligerent interactions between America and China or Russia, but we continue to try to make overtures for them to join us in civil cooperative efforts intended to foster trust and cooperation. Our civilizations remain entangled. Regardless of our petty differences, at some level our fates will always be intertwined. We're all still human, after all. I actually wish the Chinese all the best in their space exploration aspirations, because maybe it will teach them something about how vast the universe truly is, and that their future prosperity is not solely dependent upon what can be done here on Earth.

The primary issue we will face when dealing with China, be it technology development, a new space race, or errant (in my opinion) naval actions, is that the Chinese government and military forces don't operate under a set of rules that other nations find tolerable. We offer lots of up-front "goodies" to all nations willing to cooperate with us (to include Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, etc), but then when the time comes to demonstrate true cooperation on the back-end of those deals, we're frequently met with a lot of resistance to doing what was agreed upon.

I think China has a chance to get back to the moon before the US does, but only if they're completely committed to the endeavor in a way that, frankly, nobody seems terribly interested in, despite all the obvious "goodies" which our space programs have brought to the common man or woman on the street. Micro-electronics, industrial automation, cellular telecommunications, computers, location services, and an unbroken string of materials and energy advances seem like reasonably good incentives to continue doing what we're doing.

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 17:34:39

You might be right about the outcome of a ramming incident with any ship under my command. But I'd rather save my ship and be court-martialed, than be "right" in some political sense. I come from an earlier time, as you can tell.

GW

RGClark · 2024-09-05 06:15:08

Is China planning to weaponize the Moon?

https://youtu.be/eElDqTNe4oE?si=hv8Y3tgo9gBDfbF_

China wants to build a 1 megawatt nuclear reactor on the Moon, 10 times the size the U.S. is planning on. Why? Evidence suggests it’s for their electromagnetic launcher they want to use for sending resources from the Moon to Earth.

This is analogous to the SpinLaunch™ being constructed on Earth for reducing the cost to LEO. But on the Moon with no atmosphere and much reduced gravity it can send the payload all the way to lunar orbit and even all the way to Earth. Being just electrically powered the launches will be at just the cost of generating the electricity.

But it needs to be kept in mind it could send anything, anywhere on the surface of Earth. When you realize the Chinese space program is just an off-shoot of their military the possibility arises it could be used as a weapon.

“Mr. President, we must not ALLOW a spin launch gap!”
(With apologies to “Dr. Strangelove”.)

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-09-05 06:15:44)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2024-08-31 07:29:18

China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#2 2024-09-01 14:07:15

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#3 2024-09-02 01:50:20

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#4 2024-09-02 06:20:24

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#5 2024-09-02 12:14:21

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#6 2024-09-02 12:51:04

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#7 2024-09-02 17:32:56

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#8 2024-09-03 09:46:01

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#9 2024-09-03 11:24:19

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#10 2024-09-03 11:36:55

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#11 2024-09-03 12:04:47

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#12 2024-09-03 14:27:06

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#13 2024-09-03 17:34:39

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#14 2024-09-05 06:15:08

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

Board footer