January 14, 2012
China’s Long March to the Moon
The lunar crater Daniell, seen from the Chang'E 2 spacecraft
Controversy quickly followed astonishment with the recent release of a white paper outlining China’s intentions in space. Sparking particular buzz from the Internet was a statement about human lunar missions being an objective for future Chinese space efforts. That statement drew comment ranging from sophisticated to simplistic, yet in my opinion, most of the discussion to date neglects the essential point of what this means to humanity’s future in space.
The report lays out China’s plan for missions to the Moon of increasing complexity and capability. The Chinese orbiters Chang’E 1 (2007) and Chang’E 2 (2010) made global maps of the Moon’s morphology and topography. The Chang’E spacecraft demonstrated China’s ability to navigate trans-LEO space. After Chang’E 1’s mapping mission was complete, the spacecraft was deliberately de-orbited to impact the Moon. However, after surveying a potential landing site for future missions, the Chang’E 2 spacecraft left lunar orbit and was sent to the Earth-Sun L2 point, a stable location 1.5 million km from the Earth. This maneuver is quite complex and its successful completion demonstrated their capability to maneuver spacecraft throughout cislunar space. It also lays the groundwork for more complex lunar and planetary missions in the near future.
The white paper reiterates the Chinese strategy of orbiter-lander-sample return for lunar exploration with robotic missions, of which the Chang’E series is the first step. The paper mentions human spaceflight activities occurring only in low Earth orbit, specifically asserting their determination to conduct an “independent” space exploration program. Closing remarks in that section of the report have been drawing the most attention: China intends to conduct “studies on a preliminary plan for a human lunar landing.”
In NASA terms, such wording would lead no one to conclude that anything remotely flight-ready was within a decade or two of occurring. But our way is not their way. The Chinese clearly are systematically pursuing a series of steps to incrementally increase their flight experience, technology base and operational expertise in low Earth orbit, but in a direction unmistakably toward the Moon and throughout cislunar space.
Despite some pronouncements of military doom – visions of Red Army Space Troopers descending upon us – a war in space does not appear imminent. Over several pages, the report repeatedly proclaims China’s intention to “peaceably explore and use outer space,” especially in conjunction with an endless series of United Nations mandates, innumerable Moon treaties and international kumbayah. Perhaps, as Queen Gertrude once observed, they doth protest too much.
Military action is not the only possible geopolitical threat on Earth or in space. Although it is probably too early to tell, the real issue is how serious is China about expanding their sphere of operations beyond low Earth orbit to the Moon. Currently, their human space program appears to be relatively benign, with simple Earth orbital missions, the construction of a rudimentary space station, crew EVA – all steps and capabilities that a nascent space faring nation must learn and develop. Their proposed robotic lunar exploration plan likewise makes sense, in that they first orbit and map, then survey in detail to land, rove, explore and return samples. For each step, a new capability is developed, building on existing ones, with all contributing toward a future strategic position. Hmmmm – an incremental architecture with cumulative series of small but interlocking steps. What a concept!
The reaction of space observers in the West seems bifurcated along the lines of “The sky is falling!” or “Who cares?” For the former, some note that the Chinese space program is run by their military. Moreover, the demonstration test of a Chinese anti-satellite weapon in 2007 did not engender the international peaceful good feelings so stridently expressed in the white paper. Those who read potential danger in Chinese intentions in space are not being unreasonable, even if there appears to be no immediate threat. For the latter group, nothing that China has done, is doing or ever could do in space would bother them. ASAT testing? Any alarm is labeled “hysteria.” Chinese lunar landings? So what? We did that 40 years ago. These people know not what they don’t know. Holding such a position is patently naïve.
The real cause for concern is not a Chinese presence in cislunar space or on the Moon, but our absence from it. Although much has been made of China’s purported movement toward capitalism in recent decades, they still possess an authoritarian political system, one with scant regard for the rule of contract law, copyright, private property and western notions of free market dynamics. Although some may not care whether China conquers the Moon, if they are the only ones on the Moon, they will determine what operational regime and legal template will prevail there. Advocates of “commercial space” might do well to carefully consider such a scenario – commercial companies are incorporated under national auspices on Earth, pay taxes to terrestrial governments, and are subject to the laws of the country in which they are based. They will not be free agents either in space or on the Moon.
I argued almost two years ago that there is a new “space race” but that it is quite different in character from the first one. The outcome of this race will determine what kind of politico-economic paradigm will prevail on the new frontier of space. One can imagine a situation in which a country establishes a permanent presence on the Moon and maintains control of the resources there. Yes, the Moon is a big planet, but the valuable concentrations of water lie in small areas near the poles. Water at the poles of the Moon allow a space faring entity to develop routine access to the entirety of cislunar space, where all of the economic, scientific and security space assets of many countries reside. Space control in the new century does not refer to “Death Stars” bristling with space weaponry, but to situational awareness, assurance of service, and the defense and maintenance of space-based assets. Control of cislunar space – meaning in this case the ability to routinely travel throughout its extent and to all the various orbits of cislunar satellites – does not mean to militarize or weaponize space, but rather the permanent presence of a space faring power of a particular ideology or worldview, undeterred by the absence of a competing ideology.
And if some say “So what?” to that, the more fool they.
39 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
So it’s about real estate on the Moon then?
like the Arctic or Antarctica, with all those delicious resources, but with none of the wildlife to get in the way.
Comment by Phil Thomas — January 14, 2012 @ 8:26 am
The very best, ideal spots are areas of quasi-permanent sunlight that are adjacent to major, permanently shaded craters with the anomalous, high-CPR signatures. Of these, there are about one or two obvious spots. Whoever gets to those first will have a huge leg up over the competition, and will have the right under the Outer Space Treaty to declare a nice, fat safety zone with which to legally exclude latecomers and would-be claim jumpers. There will be real consequences for coming in second place.
Great article Paul!
Comment by Warren Platts — January 14, 2012 @ 10:42 am
The funniest thing about the Chinese white paper is how they almost tried to hide the fact that they intend to land humans on the Moon– even though that’s probably the costliest and most prodigious of their future space efforts.
The Chinese Communist Party knows that America is politically and economically paralyzed right now and that the can-do nation of America is currently a can’t do nation mostly due to politics. So I guess the last thing China wants to do is to reawaken a sleeping giant by bragging about China’s future manned lunar efforts.
Of course, once China is on the Moon, we probably won’t hear the end of it both over there and here in the United States:-)
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 14, 2012 @ 12:32 pm
one with scant regard for the rule of contract law, copyright, private property and western notions of free market dynamics
This is hasn’t been true for nearly a decade now.
Comment by guest — January 14, 2012 @ 5:44 pm
China has their hypergolic technology perfected. It might be well to remember that after the S-IVB boosted the the CSM/LM stack out of orbit it was all aerozine and NO4 from then on.
Getting out of orbit can be done with a really big hypergolic booster and they can put that up. And they know how to rendezvous and navigate; I would expect them to do an Apollo 8 pretty soon. They just need to reenter faster.
As for a lander- just how difficult is it to build a paper thin aluminum shell with a couple pressure fed motors on a landing platform?
I hope they land by the end of the year. I do not care who gets back to the moon at this point. Any progress toward a lunar survival colony is welcome.
The Chinese could use a big liquid hydrogen booster like the S-IVB to get a moon program really going. But that hydrogen technology is expensive. We paid dearly for it. Something private space cannot do on the cheap- which is why all their talk about fuel depots and exploration is a scam.
There is no cheap; space flight is inherently expensive.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 14, 2012 @ 6:11 pm
I find it striking that people reading this white paper can come to the conclusion that China is squarely aiming itself at a human lunar landing. In fact, what the white paper says about this, in it’s entirety, is
“China will conduct studies on the preliminary plan for a human lunar landing.”
Now that’s hardly a full throated commitment to such an endeavor. Conduct studies? Preliminary plan? The extrapolation of these few and rather weak words into a Chinese threat is pretty laughable.
That’s not to say that the Chinese aren’t interested in doing it. Just that the words in the white paper are hardly convincing. If the Chinese really are committed to it, one has to wonder why they aren’t that convincing.
Now, Marcel above thinks that they’re just tying to “hide” their intent in the white paper. If that’s the case, then we should be enormously worried about everything else they’re working on that they’ve successfully hidden in this white paper. If you want to believe it, anything looks like evidence.
That being said, I very much agree with your point that “the real cause for concern is not a Chinese presence in cislunar space or on the Moon, but our absence from it.” That is, let’s decide on our own if putting humans back on the Moon is important, and not be distracted by the Chinese. They are probably primarily motivated by showing that they can do what we once did. (Yes, I know that’s not in the white paper, but we can pretend that it is …)
Comment by Doug Lassiter — January 15, 2012 @ 3:35 pm
I find it striking that people reading this white paper can come to the conclusion that China is squarely aiming itself at a human lunar landing. In fact, what the white paper says about this, in it’s entirety, is “China will conduct studies on the preliminary plan for a human lunar landing.”
Except that’s not the only evidence of Chinese interest in the Moon — they are also executing and planning a full set of robotic precursor missions to the Moon, including orbiters, landers, and return vehicles. Additionally, the human missions that they have conducted to date have accomplished all the mission skills needed to undertake human lunar missions, including orbital rendezvous, docking and EVA. Except for sample return, this is exactly the mission set that we did prior to Apollo. Finally, just because “preliminary studies” in our space lexicon means “viewgraph hell” does not mean that others likewise have such understanding.
let’s decide on our own if putting humans back on the Moon is important, and not be distracted by the Chinese
Understanding the intent and capabilities of a potential future adversary is not being “distracted.” It is simple prudence in long-range planning.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 15, 2012 @ 3:59 pm
Here’s a quote from Ouyang Ziyuan (Ouyang), a senior consultant at China’s lunar exploration program:
“The world is witnessing the climax of the second round of lunar exploration. All the countries involved are expecting to discover more comprehensive and concrete knowledge about the moon.
If China doesn’t explore the moon, we will have no say in international lunar exploration and can’t safeguard our proper rights and interests.
The contribution of the Apollo project of the US is amazing. According to one calculation, the input-output ratio is 1:14. It drove the development of high-tech worldwide and made the US a leader in the high-tech field for almost 20 years.”
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 15, 2012 @ 4:49 pm
Paul:
Another excellent, balanced analysis of the situation.
What has bothered me the most was the lack of serious US ambitions beyond LEO until rumors of a serious Chinese lunar program. If we are just doing space in order to keep up with the Jonese, which history suggests, there is something fundamentally wrong with our values.
And I suspect that China might not get the big PR win from a manned Lunar program that we fear. Who do you know that can name the first Chinese astronaut? If they put a man on the Moon, how much will the world notice? When Sweden puts the first Sweed on the Moon, will he/she become a worldwide hero, remembered for centuries into the future?
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~5~5~20345~125448:Apollo-11-Astronauts-Swarmed-by-Tho
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — January 15, 2012 @ 6:00 pm
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 15, 2012 @ 3:59 pm
“… just because “preliminary studies” in our space lexicon means “viewgraph hell” does not mean that others likewise have such understanding.”
Additionally that was apparently not always the case here. I am not sure the term Preliminary Design Review (PDR) even existed in the early 1960’s when the Apollo Project was planned. But there were certainly a number of concurrent PDR equivalents run before the Apollo Launch Architecture was selected. This was all done expeditiously because a specific goal had been selected by the political leadership of the time. That such a condition has not existed here since (at least in terms of space) does not mean it does not now exist in Mainland China. If it does it will be educational to see what Launch Architecture they select.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 15, 2012 @ 4:49 pm
“Here’s a quote from Ouyang Ziyuan (Ouyang), a senior consultant at China’s lunar exploration program”
Great quote, do you have a link to the source for future reference?
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — January 15, 2012 @ 6:00 pm
“And I suspect that China might not get the big PR win from a manned Lunar program that we fear. Who do you know that can name the first Chinese astronaut? If they put a man on the Moon, how much will the world notice? When Sweden puts the first Sweed on the Moon, will he/she become a worldwide hero, remembered for centuries into the future?”
Maybe they will, maybe they won’t; but if they also have the goal of utilizing Lunar Resources for support of Cislunar space activities they may consider any PR advantages to be a secondary benefit.
Comment by Joe — January 15, 2012 @ 7:16 pm
“Except that’s not the only evidence of Chinese interest in the Moon — they are also executing and planning a full set of robotic precursor missions to the Moon, including orbiters, landers, and return vehicles. Additionally, the human missions that they have conducted to date have accomplished all the mission skills needed to undertake human lunar missions, including orbital rendezvous, docking and EVA. Except for sample return, this is exactly the mission set that we did prior to Apollo.”
Precisely what I said. It’s not about what the white paper says. It’s what you’re reading into everything else. You may be reading into it accurately, and certainly Chinese officials have strongly suggested that a human lunar landing is their intent, but the white paper is surprisingly NOT strongly endorsing a human lunar landing. If the white paper is a formal expression of intent, then it is not consistent with remarks by individual Chinese officials.
You said
“Sparking particular buzz from the Internet was a statement about human lunar missions being an objective for future Chinese space efforts.”
But really, that statement was strikingly weak. It hardly came across as an “objective”. It was very clearly not more than something they were going to think about. That’s about it. As suggested, that strikingly weak statement may simply be a ruse. But if you’re going to assume that it is a ruse, then one is free to extrapolate broadly.
I’m also curious about labeling the Chinese as a “potential future adversary”. Does a Chinese human landing on the Moon make them that? What exactly does make them that? The Moon has absolutely no military strategic advantage. Is it that the Chinese are going to corner the market in Helium-3? What exactly is the threat here?
Comment by Doug Lassiter — January 15, 2012 @ 8:39 pm
Mr. Bridwell,
Couldn’t disagree with you more. Once the Chinese put a guy on the Moon, it will be a huge PR win for China… and for their way of doing business. The rest of the world will take notice. Especially if the United States is sitting on the bench.
There is nothing wrong, fundamentally, with competition between nation states. When the United States responds to China’s lunar ambitions (and we will)… I expect we will have a plan on staying on the Moon, long-term.
Comment by Jim R. — January 15, 2012 @ 9:27 pm
The author said:
“The real cause for concern is not a Chinese presence in cislunar space or on the Moon, but our absence from it.”
So you’re saying we don’t need to worry about the Chinese, and this is really just an excuse to lobby for a lunar return program?
I have no doubt that a goal of the Chinese space program is to eventually land on the Moon. No doubt. The unknown is when they will do that, and if they will do it in a sustained way – will they build up to a permanent presence on the Moon?
Now if they want to put the 13th person on the Moon, I wish them well. I do think when that point comes that it will generate a sense of competition, although who will be competing, and for what, is unknown at this point. Will the Outer Space Treaty, which forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon (claiming that they are the Common heritage of mankind) hold sway? Or will it be time to amend it so we everyone can start strip mining the lunar surface?
Even with this white paper, the U.S. still lacks a clear “National Imperative” to go back to the Moon. We can do it without one, but right now there are so many constituencies fighting for space money, that no single plan or destination can gain universal support. The response to the Chinese announcement has been pretty tame from our national politicians, so maybe we have to wait until after the Presidential election to see if anyone really cares.
Of course the President and Congress have access to information we don’t, so maybe they don’t feel there is a need to react yet. That their tempo doesn’t suggest a lunar effort in the near future.
The Chinese are good at taking the long view, so the real question is whether they would consider spending a couple of hundred $Billion a good investment? Guess we’ll see.
Comment by Coastal Ron — January 16, 2012 @ 1:38 am
certainly Chinese officials have strongly suggested that a human lunar landing is their intent, but the white paper is surprisingly NOT strongly endorsing a human lunar landing
I’m not sure what your point is. Why should the white paper be more explicit? Does not action speak louder than words? Perhaps the white paper is “strikingly weak” because the Chinese accept that maxim.
I’m also curious about labeling the Chinese as a “potential future adversary”. Does a Chinese human landing on the Moon make them that? What exactly does make them that?
First, all nations are “potential” future adversaries. A wise nation prepares for a variety of eventualities. Second, you did not read the post. I specifically said that the presence of a global power that possesses different values and an antithetical politico-economic system — in the absence of one that believes what we believe — is a threat. The Moon is the key to the long-term development of cislunar space, specifically the accessible water deposits near its poles. That is a limited resource and the people on the Moon will make the rules for its harvest and use. I would rather it were someone who shares our beliefs in a free market and a pluralistic political system. The future belongs to those who prepare for it.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 16, 2012 @ 4:46 am
Trackback:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27774.0;all
Comment by Warren Platts — January 16, 2012 @ 10:34 am
We try to think ahead and surmise. But did we do this when we gave the Chinese the money they needed for their space and military expansion. Yep, it came out of your pocket each time you bought a made-in-china. Enjoy!
Comment by Nigel — January 16, 2012 @ 12:38 pm
I don’t think it requires a genius to understand that the intent of the ruling oligarchy in China is to strategically and economically dominate both the heavens and the Earth. And the Chinese Communist Party sees no logical reason why this should not happen!
China sees America as a declining super power that is politically destroying its economy by failing to appropriately invest in its technological future– especially in energy and in space.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 16, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
“I’m not sure what your point is. Why should the white paper be more explicit? Does not action speak louder than words?”
My point is that what this white paper has to say about sending humans to the Moon is vastly less committal than, say, the promise by JFK. Certainly action speaks louder than words, but what we’re talking about here, in this white paper, is words.
“Controversy quickly followed astonishment with the recent release of a white paper outlining China’s intentions in space. Sparking particular buzz from the Internet was a statement about human lunar missions being an objective for future Chinese space efforts.”
That “statement” is words. You can get your particular buzz out of actions or you can get it out of words. Seems that the Internet got it from the latter.
As I said repeatedly, I have no argument with the idea that the Chinese are pursuing a human lunar landing. Just that this white paper doesn’t communicate that strongly or explicitly. You seem to agree.
Why isn’t the white paper more explicit about that commitment? Very good question. It seems to be backing away from the much more explicit commitments by quoted members of their aerospace leadership. If the Chinese accept that maxim of action speaking louder than words, they should have told those members of their leadership that have been speaking about it explicitly.
As to “potential future adversaries”, China is an economic adversary right now. That threat has nothing to do with the Moon. One can make investments in improving our economic posture relative to theirs, or one can make investments in colonizing the Moon. The water on the Moon is of value only in carrying out a massive program of space travel — colonization perhaps. Something that this nation has never seemed to want to do in space.
With regard to lunar water, that “the people on the Moon will make the rules for its harvest and use” seems simplistic. There are lots of permanently shadowed regions on the Moon, and I find it hard to believe that China will want or be able to successfully defend all of them. That kind of uncooperative attitude will just reflect into military options here on Earth. If China wants to risk such options, by appropriating all lunar water, it’s just not a winning strategy. I guess if we see a real threat there, we should be spending our money on emplacing defensive assets at these water reservoirs rather than emplacing people.
Comment by Doug Lassiter — January 16, 2012 @ 3:35 pm
I suspect that China’s space program is much more serious than anyone realizes, considering their assignment of a workforce of 200,000.
Their motivation is 99% political.
Their objective is a manned landing on Mars, which could have significant ramification across the world.
They don’t want to stir up any competition, so they have been very tight-lipped about their plans, the exact opposite of people like Elon Musk.
Personally, I think that the US should be seriously exploring space and making use of space resources independent of competition from other nations. Not because we want to get there first, but because we want to be there, long-term.
Space (the Moon, Mars, other solar system,…) is our long-term future.
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — January 16, 2012 @ 3:36 pm
The water on the Moon is of value only in carrying out a massive program of space travel — colonization perhaps.
Simply not true. The lunar water enables us to create a reusable, extensible transportation system throughout cislunar space. Such a system has enormous economic and strategic value because all of our space assets are located within that volume of space.
None of this has anything to do with “colonization” of space. It relates to cislunar space “control” as I defined it in the post above: situational awareness and the defense and maintenance of space-based assets. That has genuine national economic and political value and thus, is something to include in future space plans.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 16, 2012 @ 4:02 pm
@Joe
“Great quote, do you have a link to the source for future reference?”
References to the Ouyang Ziyuan (Ouyang) statements can be found at:
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/10/chinese-lunar-scientist-views-on-space.html
and
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2010-10/581744.html
Marcel
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 16, 2012 @ 4:46 pm
Comment by Doug Lassiter — January 16, 2012 @ 3:35 pm
“Why isn’t the white paper more explicit about that commitment? Very good question.”
Since you seem to be the only one who has asked it, glad you like your own question.
The white paper stated what they are currently doing and that includes doing the equivalent of a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) of a Human Lunar Mission. The question is how serious are they about pursuing the results of that PDR. The article presented an analysis (based on other Chinese space activities). You seem to be agreeing with that analysis (actions speak louder than words). Therefore what you are trying to argue about is confusing unless you want to simply argue for the sake of arguing.
Comment by Joe — January 16, 2012 @ 5:15 pm
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 16, 2012 @ 4:46 pm
Thanks.
Comment by Joe — January 16, 2012 @ 6:48 pm
A Moon landing for the Chinese would probably be recognized as the symbol of China having become the second or perhaps leading super power. Such a symbol is too compelling of a goal for the Chinese to resist. True, their very tentative statement about landing a person on the Moon is very far from JFK’s statement. But since logically they should strongly want to do so, my belief is that their understatement is an intentional effort to not awaken competition.
I am not convince that China and it’s philosophy would become dominant in cis-lunar space if it were to develop lunar resources. Any appearance that China was going to attempt this would result in competition for that business and strategic position from the US and others including companies. They would have dominance for a few years at best and then they would have competitors.
The huge exception to this is if they were to attempt ownership rights. Owning the peaks of eternal light near ice deposits is a very limited resource. If they have the ability to claim one then it would take relatively little to secure others.
Bigelow points out that the Chinese can pull out of the space treaty with a year’s notice. I’d like to see some discussion on that possibility.
Comment by JohnHunt — January 17, 2012 @ 12:25 pm
re: the image at the top of the article. How does a crater end up having a plateau in the center?
Comment by JohnHunt — January 17, 2012 @ 12:30 pm
How does a crater end up having a plateau in the center?
The floor has been uplifted, probably by magma intrusion from below. These “floor-fractured craters” are common along the margins of the lunar maria.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 17, 2012 @ 12:39 pm
I’m glad someone is finally making an attempt towards the moon, although the paranoid possibilities are always there. Anyone read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” by Robert A Heinlein?
Comment by Carl N Graves — January 17, 2012 @ 5:12 pm
“We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.” – President Kennedy
Comment by Aerospace Engineer — January 17, 2012 @ 8:36 pm
“We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.” – President Kennedy
In a nutshell.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 18, 2012 @ 4:34 am
Comment by JohnHunt — January 17, 2012 @ 12:25 pm
The huge exception to this is if they were to attempt ownership rights. Owning the peaks of eternal light near ice deposits is a very limited resource. If they have the ability to claim one then it would take relatively little to secure others.
China wouldn’t have to withdraw from the OST. They could simply do what NASA has already done by issuing “guidelines”, shall we say, that restrict activities around the Apollo landing sites. E.g., I believe it is the policy of the US government that no one (or their teleoperated rovers) be allowed to step closer than 75 yards to the Apollo 11 landing site.
Strictly speaking, according to the OST, people or governments can’t make ownership claims on actual square meters of regolith; yet in practice, that is exactly what NASA has done.
Consider also that this is a rather dangerous precedent that NASA has instituted for the following reason: it is not based on continuous use and occupation, but on the basis of a single visit that lasted 21.6 hours.
As you noted, there are really only a couple of sizeable plateaus of eternal illumination that are adjacent to craters of never ending darkness: Whipple Crater in the north and Shackleton in the south.
Thus, following NASA’s own precedent, the Chinese could land for a few days on the north edge of Whipple Crater, deploy a gaggle of scientific instruments capable of lasting several years (and thus establish use, if not occupation), and then go on a nice long hike around the Crater rim in order to make sure to leave a lot of footprints marking Asia’s first landing on the Moon, and then they could turn around and say that no one should be allowed within X number of meters around the landing site!
And what could NASA do about it? They would have to respect the Chinese wishes, if they want the Chinese to respect NASA’s wishes WRT to the Apollo sites.
In this way, China could co-opt the very best sites in perpetuity without even having to set up a permanently manned base.
Comment by Warren Platts — January 19, 2012 @ 10:58 am
“Owning the peaks of eternal light near ice deposits is a very limited resource.” by JohnHunt
“There are really only a couple of sizeable plateaus of eternal illumination that are adjacent to craters of never ending darkness” by Warren Platts
Heh folk, there is no place on the Moon with “eternal illumination” as shown by JAXA Kaguya and LRO data/analyses. Even with a tower of 1 km high won’t get you there. You can get at best get 100% illumination (except for eclipses caused by the Earth) for most of the year and get pretty good illumination for the rest of the time.
Comment by James Fincannon — January 19, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
Will china claim the moon of there own, And are they going to over populate it like there country, What are their plans for this project? Since no one is claiming the rights for the moon. What is going to happen with this out come. Are they planning to set up some type of military base there and spy on everyone.
Comment by roger yost — January 20, 2012 @ 8:50 pm
@Lassiter:
Because it’s the fifth such paper in a series. It’s always been CNSA’s position to defer final decision on manned lunar missions until after Chang’e meets its objectives.
Comment by Prez Cannady — January 21, 2012 @ 6:46 am
@Lassiter:
Except, we’re not. We’re talking about five years of white papers detailing every step of the Chang’e program and CLEP then meeting every single one of those objectives. JFK’s speech is aspirational, the white papers represent hard policy and detail steps already taken and objectives yet to be met in its pursuit.
Comment by Prez Cannady — January 21, 2012 @ 6:51 am
As long as the United States has a president who cares about nothing beyond instituting socialism on a population who continues to degenerate into helpless ignorant apathy, this country will play no more significant role in space exploration or science leadership in general. That is intentional on Obama’s part, and it is all part of the fall of the once-great U.S.A.
Comment by Michael — January 21, 2012 @ 9:01 pm
Thanks for another thoughtful article, Paul.
There is a minor grammatical note to make on the white paper. It says “China will conduct studies on THE preliminary plan for a human lunar landing.” “THE”, not “A”. Perhaps this is meaningless, or perhaps it has a slightly non-trivial meaning.
The document appears to be written by someone with a significant knowledge of English grammar. So, although this usage may be an unimportant anomaly, it may be a subtle indication that they have a plan, not just a plan to make viewgraphs.
In any case, I have to agree with Paul; this is not high ground we can afford to ignore.
—
Nelson Bridwell wrote “Their objective is a manned landing on Mars, which could have significant ramification across the world.”
I disagree with the first part. Mars may be Nelson’s objective, and it may be what many in the exec branch have called the “ultimate destination” (are we really stopping with a flag on Mars?), but I suspect ascribing the current US meme to the Chinese is a mistake. Given their longer horizon (in part enabled by their political structure), it may be more likely that they seek an evolutionary expansion (Paul’s words are “an incremental architecture with cumulative series of small but interlocking steps”).
Comment by John — January 22, 2012 @ 1:55 am
Specifically, the 2011 white paper reads:
“开展载人登月前期方案论证。”
“方案论证” is “demonstration” The qualifier “前期” is literally “pre-.”
We should take the official translation as the one conveying Beijing’s intent, but John’s right. The use of the English definite article is no mistake. China’s on a schedule, and preliminary planning indicates her commitment within technical limits, not a non-committal interest in the prospect of manned lunar exploration.
Comment by Prez Cannady — January 23, 2012 @ 2:20 pm
Per Prez Cannady: the translation I used was the semi-official English language version that was released by Xinhua . Since Xinhua is the official news agency, I found the English translation enlightening in what it had to say to the English-reading world.
Comment by John — January 27, 2012 @ 12:43 am
[...] human spaceflight efforts currently focus on low Earth orbit, in recent years they have sent two robotic orbital spacecraft to the Moon and have announced their intentions for a lunar lander/rover mission. These efforts lead many in [...]
Pingback by China and the Moon | The Once and Future Moon — June 19, 2012 @ 5:57 am