China Publicly Discloses Plan For a Lunar Landing Within Three Years (arstechnica.com) 64
At the Seventh Manned Spaceflight Conference in Beijing, Chinese space officials publicly outlined the most detailed roadmap yet for landing astronauts on the Moon "before 2030." Ars Technica reports: China's lunar landings will involve a lunar-orbit rendezvous similar to what NASA did in the 1960s and early 1970s with the Apollo program. However, lacking a rocket as powerful as the Saturn V vehicle, the crew and lunar lander will launch separately to the Moon. According to slides shared on social media, the current plan involves:
- An uncrewed test of the Long March 10A rocket (a single-stick variant, with no boosters) and the Mengzhou spacecraft to low-Earth orbit. Target: early 2027
- An uncrewed test of the larger Long March 10 rocket (a core stage with two boosters) and the Lanyue lunar lander, including descent/ascent from Moon's surface. Target: 2028
- A concurrent launch of two Long March 10 rockets, one carrying uncrewed Mengzhou and the other the Lanyue vehicle; they will dock in lunar orbit. Target: 2029
- Dual launch of Long March 10 rockets, this time with crew on the Mengzhou spacecraft, leading to crewed landing mission. Target: "Before 2030"
The public release of this new information provides a timeline for gauging China's technical progress in its efforts to land humans on the Moon before 2030 and beat NASA and the United States back to the lunar surface. Notably, the plan (for now, at least) omits a mission similar to Apollo 8 or Artemis II, which involved a crew flying out to the Moon and either entering orbit or passing close by before returning to Earth. The Mengzhou vehicle should still get a workout closer to Earth with humans on board as part of missions carrying astronauts to Tiangong, China's space station in low-Earth orbit.
- An uncrewed test of the Long March 10A rocket (a single-stick variant, with no boosters) and the Mengzhou spacecraft to low-Earth orbit. Target: early 2027
- An uncrewed test of the larger Long March 10 rocket (a core stage with two boosters) and the Lanyue lunar lander, including descent/ascent from Moon's surface. Target: 2028
- A concurrent launch of two Long March 10 rockets, one carrying uncrewed Mengzhou and the other the Lanyue vehicle; they will dock in lunar orbit. Target: 2029
- Dual launch of Long March 10 rockets, this time with crew on the Mengzhou spacecraft, leading to crewed landing mission. Target: "Before 2030"
The public release of this new information provides a timeline for gauging China's technical progress in its efforts to land humans on the Moon before 2030 and beat NASA and the United States back to the lunar surface. Notably, the plan (for now, at least) omits a mission similar to Apollo 8 or Artemis II, which involved a crew flying out to the Moon and either entering orbit or passing close by before returning to Earth. The Mengzhou vehicle should still get a workout closer to Earth with humans on board as part of missions carrying astronauts to Tiangong, China's space station in low-Earth orbit.
Bon voyage/Huan ying (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, Elon, take all my money! Only you can send a mission to the moon so that it arrives 3 months before the Chinese land. I just hope my meagre savings are enough!
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:1)
This is a solved problem, what military benefit does the ccp gain from this stunt?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
It (landing humans on the Moon and returning them safely) was previously solved. There is no current solution. (Artemis currently has no lander, no suits, no tested transfer stage, and is limited to 2 more flights.)
And the 'why?' is for the same reason as the original space race: national prestige and a demonstration of technological power and competence in a world with two superpowers competing for influence.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, we can learn about longer term habitation on other worlds in low gravity, and about collecting resources. The Moon has water and H3 and other stuff.
This time the effort of getting there will probably be more sustainable, because China is unlikely to give up even if the US somehow gets back there first, and because the whole industry is more sustainable now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they solve the space radiation problem first. Without that anyone going there is deado.
Re: (Score:2)
The amazing cloud cities we could build on Venus [bbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
If you are talking about worlds in our solar system, then possibly. Otherwise you cannot get there from here, at least not withing several 10s of years travel time.
Or you could be one of those AI Techno-Babies who think they'll transport their consciousness into a bot and send its ass there from here. The only thing is, hardware tends to break down after roughly a few years. So unless you go way faster than we possibly can below the speed of light, you are not going anywhere you care to be.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
1) National security (because humanity decided we couldn't trust each other, we decided to keep building weapons).
2) National pride (raise the scientific and cultural levels of China, the want to be the world's best).
3) Innovation, discovery, science/technology improvement, the reasons everyone gives etc.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Point (1) is your own understanding, not of the stated purpose. You missed the major point "safeguarding [the Moon's] security for the benefit of all humanity". I think this is an answer to the united states of America seeking to establish a new set of guiding principles around lunar exploration - and lunar exploitation [bbc.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
I would guess : Knowledge
Remember that the Russians laid the theoretical foundation for space travel, and calculated in about 1900 that a on-stage rocket was not enough to escape the Earths gravity. Also remember that the Germans in WWII did all the practical work to make spacecraft possible. Our Space Technology teacher said: "If Hitler wanted to put the first German on the moon, he would have succeeded. Alas he had other plans". There is a surprisingly small difference between a spacecraft rocket and an I
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"They will certainly have imported knowledge and craftsmanship where feasible" - Well that's a funny way to say IP theft.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hoarding Imaginary Property only benefits the hoarder. Humanity benefits when knowledge is shared.
This does require that we get access to whatever improvements the CCP makes to our technology... If not by cooperation, then we must resort to espionage: Steal that shit back, fair is fair.
Re: (Score:2)
"improvements" ?? - Bwahahaha, yeah that's why we have terms like Chinesium when talking about "improved" Chinese products.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a solved problem, what military benefit does the ccp gain from this stunt?
It is the usual pissing contest: the Chinese have to show that, as of 2026, they can piss farther than anybody else. That's also why the US got to the Moon almost 60 years ago: they were desperate to show that they could piss farther than the Soviets.
Yes, humans are the stupidest animal on the planet: lucky enough to have evolved a big brain with superior cognitive abilities, they tend to use it for pissing contests.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure a lot of it is for prestige, basically a very complex PR move. At a time when their main adversary is bringing back measles and public executions, it would stand in contrast to that as a vision of human achievement.
I could also think of military applications for a moonbase, although I didn't think too hard on them.
Great! A space race is better than WW3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Get as many people on the moon as we can to look back on earth and see how small, vulnerable and precious our planet is.
Then perhaps we can get some global leaders more interested in preserving it than having gold ballrooms and wasteful wars to pad their egos.
Re: (Score:3)
That should put off ET from visiting.
Re:Great! A space race is better than WW3 (Score:4, Insightful)
It is only a wasteful war because Trump and Hegseth are too stupid to do it properly.
Re:Great! A space race is better than WW3 (Score:5, Informative)
And if Trump hadn't previously withdrawn [wikipedia.org] from an agreement that would have limited Iran's nuclear program, the war would probably not have happened either.
Re: (Score:3)
The old deal let them continue enriching uranium. The end result between that and no deal are the same.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you know that?
When the deal was in place, observers were allowed in to make sure the treaty was upheld. Now maybe Iran could have hidden enrichment towards a nuke, but common sense says you'll have a better chance of finding that out with intelligence assets on the ground, they might even find out the locations, personnel for a takedown later on. The same assets could work on motivating the people towards regime change, identify the weak points in the leadership and keep a dialogue going.
Trump fucke
Re: (Score:2)
Now what are your options for Iran? Glass the place? Send in the marines?
No, it's going to be the 82nd airborne paratroopers. The goal will be to take out Iran's missile capability.
Get that incontinent, senile, corrupt twat out of the white house before he bumbles you into WW3 and trashes America's reputation further.
Americans mostly don't care about our reputation. But, two more years is all we have to endure. Polls say Trump will lose some power at the midterms, so that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's going to be the 82nd airborne paratroopers. The goal will be to take out Iran's missile capability.
It's a big country, mountains and desert. Rubbish for paratroopers. Rubbish for anyone. Play hide and seek or get caught out in the open. Don't see it. They're good but they ain't magic.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem isn't the desert, it's the cities. The cities are a problem because the Iranian army cares less about its own people than America does. Iran has killed more of its own people in the last year than America.
Rubbish for paratroopers. Rubbish for anyone...They're good but they ain't magic.
Yes, some of them will die.
Re: (Score:2)
The old deal let them continue enriching uranium. The end result between that and no deal are the same.
For various values of "enriching", and none of those values allow for a usable nuclear explosive. But don't let that get in the way of your propaganda bullshit.
The JCPOA had these limitations, which Iran was complying with:
No enrichment past 3.67% which is suitable for civilian energy / medical use and NOT WEAPONS in any way
A limit on the total amount of UF6 stockpile (300kg or equivalent)
A limit on the number of centrifuges (5060 operational)
I have sources [armscontrolcenter.org] to back [wikipedia.org] my claims [washingtoninstitute.org]. Where are yours?
Stop parrotin
Re:Great! A space race is better than WW3 (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what is your plan, General? Invade a country of 93.4 million people who have history of not buckling under to anyone? You first.
Of you could inflict some serious Christian War Crimes on them in the hopes they will buckle and won't hold a grudge for the next 100 years. Hint: look at the history of the Middle East and how long their grudges last.
Or you could bomb the rubble some more and watch Iran take out what is left of the U.S. bases in the region and destroy the region's oil economy. Frankly, it would do a world of good for global warming, so that might be a good idea....except for the number of dead people around the Gulf and beyond.
All la Presidenta has succeeded in doing is spending down our treasury and the U.S. munitions piles, and simultaneously given the Iranian regime a new lease on life. Prior to this, the Iranian people were thinking about putting the heads of Iranian leadership and their stooges (Rev. Guard, Basij) on pikes. Now, that crowd looks like it will be there for at least the next 100 years.
Is there anything el Bunko cannot bankrupt, financially and morally?
Re: (Score:2)
All la Presidenta has succeeded in doing is spending down our treasury and the U.S. munitions piles, and simultaneously given the Iranian regime a new lease on life.
Let's not forget vastly increasing the price of oil, more than counteracting the oversupply from the stolen Venezuelan reserves and transferring billions directly to his crony's pockets thereby.
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping anyone from having nuclear weapons is a good contribution. Especially violent cultures that have been at war with someone, somewhere since their formation.
What would properly look like to you old man?
If leaders want to fight, let them fight, let them put their families and properties in the line of fire. If we started killing warmongering leaders instead of civilians and young servicemen and women, wasteful wars would end very quickly.
Re: (Score:1)
"Especially violent cultures that have been at war with someone, somewhere since their formation."
But enough about the United States...
Re: (Score:2)
If preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon was really the goal, the JCPOA was working and should have been upheld and extended.
Put the blame on Iran's access to nuclear weapons where it belongs: with the astoundingly stupid decision to tear that deal up because it was Obama that signed it.
After the JCPOA was nullified, Iran went from sub-3% enrichment to above 50%. And that is squarely on Trump because he created the conditions for it.
If there is an Iranian bomb, it's because Trump caused it to be so.
Re: Great! A space race is better than WW3 (Score:2)
Only one culture has ever nuked anyone.
And it was done for funsies.
If anyone should be deprived of nukes, it's US.
Re: (Score:2)
Say Iran had nuclear weapons. What would happen if Iran used them? They would get wiped out in retaliation. How does that benefit Iran? Why was North Korea allowed to develop nuclear weapons but not Iran?
Re: (Score:1)
Say Iran had nuclear weapons. What would happen if Iran used them? They would get wiped out in retaliation. How does that benefit Iran? Why was North Korea allowed to develop nuclear weapons but not Iran?
Your statement presupposes leaders that are both invested and interested in promoting some kind of globally optimal improvement(s) for their country as their primary objective(s). I seriously doubt any leadership of any country can claim that with high confidence, and I certainly doubt the sequence of radicals that have been running Iran since the late 70s would come anywhere near qualifying. The first and most important question when dealing with leadership in another country is what is their objective
Re: (Score:2)
Be our guest (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. My SlashID is 151819, making me the first AI in a line of may that prove that AI can be smarter than most Slashdotters ;-) Here's your sign [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what numerical system does 4450103 precede 151819?
Re: (Score:3)
some one didn't read moon is a harsh mistress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
strategic locations matter
Let's get Funny? (Score:1)
Really disappointed by the lack of Funny on the story. Have we all lost our funny bones? Or are we too afraid of being called anti-Chinese or even racists? Or maybe it's manufactured fear of Chinese sock puppets overrunning Slashdot? New and improved AI slop and powered with Chinese genAI copied from American genAI LLM slop generators!
Having said that, the only joke that came to my weak sense of humor would involve a crew of Chinese astronauts with names that sound like English words, thus creating a new "W
Re: (Score:2)
Lou: Bud, I’m getting a radio transmission from our space program, but I can’t make heads or tails of it. Who is up on the moon right now?
Bud: No, Hu is on Earth.
Lou: I’m asking you who is on the moon!
Bud: And I’m telling you, Yu is on the moon.
Lou: Me?! I’m standing right here next to you! How can I be on the moon?
Bud: Not you, Yu!
Lou: Not me, who?
Bud: Hu is on Earth!
Lou: I don’t know who is on Earth, I want to know who is on the moon!
Bud: No, Hu is on Earth. Yu is on th
2nd system (Score:3)
The US will finally return to the moon in 2050, if we're lucky. That is because all the players in the US are suffering 2nd system syndrome (Fred Brooks): the first system, Apollo, had shortcomings, now the second system, Artemis and its co-dependents, are going to go for the max -- I almost said "go for the moon" -- and do everything they can think of, leading to endless complexity, costs, and delays.
Re: (Score:2)
A lunar landing! (Score:1)
Been there, done that... (Score:2)