On August 31 local time, space policy writer Mark Whitington wrote a commentary article in the U.S. "The Hill" discussing the lunar exploration rivalry between China and the United States.
The article stated that the U.S. Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Duffy announced the acceleration of the lunar nuclear reactor plan, aiming to send it into space before 2030, and linked it to China's crewed lunar landing plan, claiming to "win the second space race." However, this seemingly intense "confrontation" is actually a hasty move driven by American anxiety, in sharp contrast to China's steady layout.
U.S. Transportation Secretary and Acting NASA Administrator Duffy
In fact, from planning to action, the U.S. has shown an urgent tone from head to toe. From a strategic perspective, the U.S. space hegemony that has lasted for decades is beginning to wane. For many years, the U.S. has taken pride in being the "leader" in space, relying on the glory of the Apollo program. However, as China's space industry gradually breaks through, from the stable operation of its space station to the lunar exploration project setting records, especially the clear plan to achieve a crewed lunar landing before 2030, it has made the U.S., which is used to "dominating alone," restless. To protect its image and strategic advantages, the U.S. is urgently proposing the "big project" of the lunar nuclear reactor, trying to take the lead on the new track.
However, the ideal is full, but the reality is bone-dry. The U.S. own lunar landing plan has already fallen apart. The "Artemis" plan has been shouting for years about returning to the moon, but the core Starship crew landing system has problems: the development of the reusable heat shield has hit a wall; without it, the spacecraft would be "naked" when returning. The near-Earth orbit refueling technology has failed several times, and without fuel, the lunar landing is just talk. Not to mention the hard challenges such as landing on the moon surface and storing cryogenic propellants, which have not been solved yet. Even independent aerospace experts have openly stated that the U.S. wanting to land on the moon in 2027 is pure fantasy, and whether it can try in 2028 is still questionable. In this situation, pushing the lunar nuclear reactor is essentially "breaking down one wall to patch another," trying to cover up its technical shortcomings with a more grandiose gimmick.
Domestic political calculations in the U.S. have further complicated the plan. NASA has had its budget cut repeatedly in recent years. Duffy, who holds two positions, has been controversial. Promoting the nuclear reactor plan is not only to consolidate his authority at NASA under the name of "space strategy," but also to seek more budget from Congress. However, experts have already poured cold water on it: completing the design, construction, and approval of the reactor before 2030 is not realistic. Not to mention the technical challenges, just transporting nuclear materials into space would not pass the safety test. If there is an accident during the launch of radioactive substances, the consequences would be unimaginable. The related approval process could drag the plan into "the year of the monkey."
Looking at China, it is completely a different rhythm. China's crewed lunar landing before 2030 is not just empty words, but a real "construction according to the map": key technologies have been completed in the early stages, and it has entered the preliminary prototype development phase. In August, the Chang'e 10 carrier rocket's tethered ignition test was successful, equivalent to passing a critical medical examination for the lunar landing "vehicle". The Chang'e 6 has just brought back nearly 2 kilograms of samples from the far side of the moon, setting a new record. Next, Chang'e 7 and 8 will be launched as planned, building a lunar research station step by step. The whole process is closely connected, with no false pretenses.
More importantly, China's lunar exploration path has never been a "solitary struggle." The International Lunar Research Station project has already attracted participation from multiple countries, and lunar research samples are open for application by global scientists. From the launch of the "Dongfanghong-1" to welcoming astronauts from multiple countries in the space station, every step of China's space industry has been in line with the rhythm of peaceful use and win-win cooperation, never seeing space as a "battlefield for dominance." Unlike the U.S., which often binds space projects with "competition" and "hegemony," even trying to draw a "no-entry zone" on the moon, turning space into a new arena for geopolitical games.
Looking back at history, the space competition during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, although it gave rise to some technological breakthroughs, consumed astronomical resources and ultimately did not bring much practical benefit to humanity. Now, the U.S. is trying to retrace the old path, distorting China's normal space development as a "threat." Essentially, it is still the Cold War mindset at work. However, the times have changed. Space is not a backyard for a single country. The Outer Space Treaty has long clarified the principle of peaceful use of outer space. Playing "small circles" and engaging in "zero-sum games" will only isolate the U.S. more in the international community.
At the end of the day, space exploration is not about who shouts louder or whose plan is more intimidating, but who has a more solid layout and a purer original intention. China will not be thrown off course by the U.S. rhythm, but will steadily advance according to its own plan, turning lunar exploration into a cause that promotes scientific progress and benefits all mankind. If the U.S. continues to hold on to "hegemony anxiety" and waste energy, it may eventually end up with "a basket of water, nothing gained." After all, true space power is never built by rushing blindly.
Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7545095486672208384/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the 【top/down】 buttons.