Rocket launch marks big step in building China’s lunar infrastructure

Queqiao-2 will relay data between Earth and Chinese spacecraft on the far side of the Moon.

See full article...

 

[Felix K]

*⅙-g, though - not zero-g

damn it's weird getting old... the teenage me would never have gotten that wrong.

 

[mcrnxuesen]

Well, that's the point. Regime change can come about by the people themselves doing the changing. if the Chinese people back what their government is doing, then that's even more reason for the west to not have a desire for better relations with them. China, North Korea and Iran (as well as tacit approval by some African regimes) are directly helping Russia in it's genocidal and criminal assault on the Ukrainian people. With their continued poor record on respecting human rights, China as well as Russia don't merit our cooperation with them in space and other areas.

And most of the countries of the world are against US supporting Israel's genocide of Gaza. Will the US listen and stop that?

In the meantime, the US is still directly buying uranium and titanium and oil indirectly through India and thereby funding Putin's war machine. Why don't you bitch about that.

 

[Wickwick]

If the tankers are routinely reused the dry mass shouldn't matter much. Propellants are cheap. But yes, an expendable Starship with a light third stage and some smallish engines instead of the payload section would be a rational way to deal with this. HLS being based straight on Starship is pretty much just a cost-cutting approach for SpaceX as far as development efforts are concerned with Artemis as planned by NASA. They bid with what they were meaning to build anyway.

Also to land and to lift off from the Moon isn't all, you also need to get there in the first place from LEO. A fully fueled Starship (without heat shield, flaps etc.) fits the bill nicely, even if it may have too much thrust and with this too many engines.

The mass of Ship is enough to withstand 6+ g's of acceleration. An ideal landing and launch on/from the moon is probably closer to 0.5 g. So it's not just that there's too much engine (there is). It's also that the wall thickness of Ship is perhaps 10 times higher than what is necessary for the loads that will be experienced from LEO to the lunar surface. Now instead of launching tankers every day+ you're launching perhaps twice per week. While propellant is relatively inexpensive, the launch costs and range availability are a concern.

 

[Nurep]

Maybe China is willing to play nice, maybe not. But if you treat China as the enemy, they will act like the enemy.

It's the oldest political ploy in the world. Need to distract the population from all the unsolved domestic issues? "Hey, but what about those fuckers in China/USA/Russia?"

I know this is a rocket thread, but... For real? Treating Russia as an enemy is a ploy of our western politicians? Go watch "20 days in Mariupol" and tell me again.
And as for China they are clearly politically, rhetorically economically and to some extent militarily supporting Russia. Appeasement is not the way. Peace comes when the west is able to secure itself and deter violent actions by Russia and China. Not by bowing to Putin and Xi.

 

[bb-15]

If you want a realistic chance of supporting a lunar base, it seems to me that a launch per week might well be needed, at least early on. Bootstrapping a working economy from scratch will take an enormous amount of stuff. And people.

On Earth, the environment is so friendly that you can build an economy from literally nothing, you can just hang out in the trees and survive, but one on Luna will need so much equipment to be even minimally viable, and will teeter on the brink of extinction for years and years, if it survives at all. Survival requirements will need ridiculous amounts of redundancy to be safe, and all that redundant gear will take a ton of maintenance, which means even more stuff launched from Earth.

I think it's likely to take at least a decade of weekly launches, and very possibly a lot more or a lot longer, before any lunar colony becomes self-sufficient. The investment required will seem like lunacy.

edit: and it's very possible our entire safety regime will have to change. If a Starship is lost, there's a good chance they won't be able to stand down for six months or a year to figure out what went wrong and fix it. They may have to keep launching to keep the people on the Moon alive while they figure it out.

I agree with all of that about the need for weekly earth/Moon launches for a lunar colony(s) to thrive in the early decade(s).
However, I have a different view about the safety regime.
To me to promote safety, it is essential that there be multiple landing systems. From what I see now the serious contenders are SpaceX and Blue Origin. Both of their Moon landing systems need to be fully operational. Then if one is offline due to safety issues, then the other can continue with earth to lunar traffic.

 

[uhuznaa]

The mass of Ship is enough to withstand 6+ g's of acceleration. An ideal landing and launch on/from the moon is probably closer to 0.5 g. So it's not just that there's too much engine (there is). It's also that the wall thickness of Ship is perhaps 10 times higher than what is necessary for the loads that will be experienced from LEO to the lunar surface. Now instead of launching tankers every day+ you're launching perhaps twice per week. While propellant is relatively inexpensive, the launch costs and range availability are a concern.

Yes, but as it stands now HLS sorties will not be a regular thing in any way. HLS is quite braindead as just a dedicated Moon lander, but it's based on Starship, which WILL be a regular thing to fly.

Designing a dedicated (and substantial) craft to fly only a handful of missions and that is good for nothing else than that isn't the way SpaceX is doing things. They just bid on this because it halfway looked as if it could work, would earn them some money, allow them to gather experiences and nicely pad their launch cadence. I doubt that SpaceX cares very much about going to the Moon at all in itself.

I agree that a lightweight and possibly hydrolox stage could be much more efficient for this task. Just let BO do this if they can.

 

[malor]

Both of their Moon landing systems need to be fully operational. Then if one is offline due to safety issues, then the other can continue with earth to lunar traffic.

That makes excellent sense. Having more than one lunar transportation system will make things a lot safer.

 

[malor]

If we're flying to the moon every week, it's not going to be a Starship doing it. You're looking 100+ tonnes of metal that are flying to (and presumably from) the moon for each trip. That's a ton of refill missions. One doesn't need 100 tonnes of structure to hold 100 tonnes of payload + the requisite propellant to land and lift off the moon. Something 1/5 that mass could suffice potentially.

OK, maybe I'm missing something here, but lift to and from the Moon strikes me as almost entirely irrelevant. About 99% of the mass lift for the first decades will be coming from Earth, because it has to. Luna's return shipments will be very sparse for a very long time.

AFAIK, you need 100 tons of mass to lift 100 tons of payload from Earth, which is going to be the only important criterion for a long, long time.

edit: maybe they'll get some kind of lighter space taxi to transit that 100 tons from LEO to Luna, but everything is still going to be going up to orbit from Earth on a Starship or equivalent, and probably everything's going to be coming down that way, too.

 

[odikweos]

China's approach to pretty much anything is methodical and systematic. I'm very much afraid the West is going to lose the race for de facto ownership of the Moon, because for us, everything is about dollars.

 

[Wickwick]

Yes, but as it stands now HLS sorties will not be a regular thing in any way. HLS is quite braindead as just a dedicated Moon lander, but it's based on Starship, which WILL be a regular thing to fly.

Designing a dedicated (and substantial) craft to fly only a handful of missions and that is good for nothing else than that isn't the way SpaceX is doing things. They just bid on this because it halfway looked as if it could work, would earn them some money, allow them to gather experiences and nicely pad their launch cadence. I doubt that SpaceX cares very much about going to the Moon at all in itself.

I agree that a lightweight and possibly hydrolox stage could be much more efficient for this task. Just let BO do this if they can.

I started this line of thinking by saying weekly trips wouldn't be a Starship. Even as cheap as propellants are, that's too many tanker flights. So yeah, something else. If there's a market, SpaceX will address it. If there's not and NASA decides to do it anyways, maybe SpaceX bids, maybe they don't. But it won't be Starship.

 

[malor]

I started this line of thinking by saying weekly trips wouldn't be a Starship. Even as cheap as propellants are, that's too many tanker flights. So yeah, something else. If there's a market, SpaceX will address it. If there's not and NASA decides to do it anyways, maybe SpaceX bids, maybe they don't. But it won't be Starship.

If we want a true lunar economy, that is probably what we will have to use.

 

[Wickwick]

OK, maybe I'm missing something here, but lift to and from the Moon strikes me as almost entirely irrelevant. About 99% of the mass lift for the first decades will be coming from Earth, because it has to. Luna's return shipments will be very sparse for a very long time.

AFAIK, you need 100 tons of mass to lift 100 tons of payload from Earth, which is going to be the only important criterion for a long, long time.

edit: maybe they'll get some kind of lighter space taxi to transit that 100 tons from LEO to Luna, but everything is still going to be going up to orbit from Earth on a Starship or equivalent, and probably everything's going to be coming down that way, too.

The trouble is, once you've made LEO you've only achieved less than half your delta-V assuming the HLS isn't being tossed and has to propulsively return to LEO. All that delta-V and mass is a lot of tanker flights.

A flight every 6 months? A Starship-derived HLS is probably fine. But the comment that kicked off this discussion was the need for weekly supply missions. Starship is too unoptimized for micro- and lunar-gravity operations.

 

[Imbrium]

Talk of a lunar colony sounds so scifi, and futuristic, but it is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. Historically, colonies were set up someplace for economic reasons, with the colonies supplying raw materials, sending them to the mother country for processing into finished goods, and then sold back to the colonies. Economics was their primary, secondary and tertiary reason to exist. That is not going to happen with the Moon for the foreseeable future. There is nothing on the Moon that would justify the expense of collecting it and shipping it back to Earth.

A lunar outpost is probably the more accurate description of what we will see. Similar to bases in Antarctica, they will be established for scientific research, and may not even be continuously occupied. As such, I don't think there will be a need for weekly trips to the Moon. Like the ISS, there will be resupply missions, maybe once every month or two, depending on the size of the crew and outpost, and crew rotation flights.

 

[danan]

Maybe China is willing to play nice, maybe not. But if you treat China as the enemy, they will act like the enemy.

It's the oldest political ploy in the world. Need to distract the population from all the unsolved domestic issues? "Hey, but what about those fuckers in China/USA/Russia?"

Given the rhetoric flying around, China is using that ploy at least as much as anybody else.

The "who should play nice first" question is just another case of the prisoner's dilemma, no? And we're back at diplomacy as it's been played for longer than we care to document.

 

[lucubratory]

Good luck to them! Any space mission that hasn't been done by anyone before is a very difficult mission (hell, the ones that have been done before are still very difficult), and the Chang'e 4 mission showed that they can accomplish that pretty well.

Now it's time for the US to pull its finger out, stop complaining, and start racing. Let's see the space race start in earnest!

 

[The_Motarp]

Given the rhetoric flying around, China is using that ploy at least as much as anybody else.

The "who should play nice first" question is just another case of the prisoner's dilemma, no? And we're back at diplomacy as it's been played for longer than we care to document.

The US played nice with both China and Russia first, but both Putin and Xi are dedicated to destroying the current world order where conquering your neighbours isn’t allowed and democracies are favoured over dictatorships. At this point the options are basically to either tell the Neo-Hitlers that no they can’t have the Sudetenland now, or to fight World War 3 later.

 

[Chopfuna]

Talk of a lunar colony sounds so scifi, and futuristic, but it is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. Historically, colonies were set up someplace for economic reasons, with the colonies supplying raw materials, sending them to the mother country for processing into finished goods, and then sold back to the colonies. Economics was their primary, secondary and tertiary reason to exist. That is not going to happen with the Moon for the foreseeable future. There is nothing on the Moon that would justify the expense of collecting it and shipping it back to Earth.

A lunar outpost is probably the more accurate description of what we will see. Similar to bases in Antarctica, they will be established for scientific research, and may not even be continuously occupied. As such, I don't think there will be a need for weekly trips to the Moon. Like the ISS, there will be resupply missions, maybe once every month or two, depending on the size of the crew and outpost, and crew rotation flights.

I agree with you with the following differences. There will be a few lunar research bases. Probably clustered around the crater everyone wants. Once there the need for local cooperation will become evident. Sometimes you cannot wait a week for help. So help will come from your neighbors. If a base chooses not to cooperate they may not survive. So I expect that the same cooperation the grew between Cold War astronauts and cosmonauts will eventually happen on the moon.

 

[FreeRangeOrganicSoyLatteCappuccino]

Given the rhetoric flying around, China is using that ploy at least as much as anybody else.

The "who should play nice first" question is just another case of the prisoner's dilemma, no? And we're back at diplomacy as it's been played for longer than we care to document.

Read up on the "Thucydides's Trap"

This scenario between a rising China and a declining USA is hardly new to human history.

 

[ajeffco]

Consider that if we did live in such a cooperative paradise moon exploration might not have happened at all. Records of the JFK administration show that he did not care particularly about space at all - he just didn't want to lose to the Russians. I don't think that much has changed in sixty years. Human fear, envy, and greed has pushed us for millennia and will continue to do so.

In other words, I think there's an efficient frontier between cooperation and competition that results in the greatest progression for humanity as a whole. While I too would much prefer for astronauts and taikonauts to land together on the moon, I'd rather them land separately than not at all.

Good points. Unfortunately I think we've lost that "national drive" to some degree, at least as it relates to beating the Russians.

100% agreed on the landing separately instead of not at all.

Have a great day!

 

[FreeRangeOrganicSoyLatteCappuccino]

I know this is a rocket thread, but... For real? Treating Russia as an enemy is a ploy of our western politicians? Go watch "20 days in Mariupol" and tell me again.
And as for China they are clearly politically, rhetorically economically and to some extent militarily supporting Russia. Appeasement is not the way. Peace comes when the west is able to secure itself and deter violent actions by Russia and China. Not by bowing to Putin and Xi.

Not going to defend Russia. But look up how many civilians were killed in Iraq, and compare that to Ukraine.

Then look up how many wars been started by China, and how many civilians have been killed by China in the past 40 years. China may have killed lots of its own people (hard to say for sure, as I am bathed in Western propaganda). But deaths due to international interventions by China? Not so much.

And if you are going to blame China for supporting Russia, do you similarly condemn India (a purported US ally) and Turkiye (a freaking NATO member). Heck, as of 2023, the EU was still purchasing some $18.4 Billion of Russian fossil fuels.

The real world is a lot messier than the propaganda that our media delivers.

 

[llanitedave]

I'm sure this will come across as naive, I'm well aware of why it won't happen...

It's really a pity that nations can't get along at a human level to co-operate with each other to further our technological advancements. For example imagine if all of the scientists in nations with rockets were fully allowed to collaborate without the restrictions of politics, religion, etc., etc.

Pity.

Nations can and do get along. It's when autocrats take charge that international cooperation falls apart. Rid the world of tyrants, and nations will be individually prosperous and collectively responsible.

 

[Nurep]

Not going to defend Russia. But look up how many civilians were killed in Iraq, and compare that to Ukraine.

Then look up how many wars been started by China, and how many civilians have been killed by China in the past 40 years. China may have killed lots of its own people (hard to say for sure, as I am bathed in Western propaganda). But deaths due to international interventions by China? Not so much.

And if you are going to blame China for supporting Russia, do you similarly condemn India (a purported US ally) and Turkiye (a freaking NATO member). Heck, as of 2023, the EU was still purchasing some $18.4 Billion of Russian fossil fuels.

The real world is a lot messier than the propaganda that our media delivers.

Whataboutism doesn't absolve Russia. I personally think Bush and Cheney should have been in a cell in the Hague.
But by repeating the "what about Iraq" point you are exactly parotting the Russian propaganda narrative.

India has a neutral position. Lamentable as that is, it didn't condemn the invasion. But it doesn't actively politically and rhetorically support Russia. I find it understandable that they still buy hydrocarbons from Russia, given how poor a lot of Indians still are.

China on the other hand has basically stuck with the Russian propaganda narrative throughout the invasion. That is blaming the west and not laying any blame whatsoever at Putins feet. They are intensifying economic and political cooperation. As signalled amongst other things by their "no limits partnership" and regular top level visits.

Turkey condemned the invasion and has actively supported Ukraine, for instance by giving the Bayraktar drones.

As for the EU we have dramatically reduced our imports even since 2023. But there is a certain autocratic leader, Orban, who still loves to import from Russia.

I see that you have have fallen victim to a propaganda narrative. But it's not a Western one, it's the Rusian-Chinese narrative. And I am not sure you are aware to what extent you are parroting what the autocrats want you to think.

 

[BrangdonJ]

According to Eric Berger's anonymous source it is highly likely, that after few launches NASA will drop SLS and Orion and switch to Dragon + Starship.

1. HLS launched to LEO
2. refueled
3. astronauts launched to LEO on a Dragon
4. dock HLS
5. Earth-Moon-Earh roundtrip on HLS
6. Dragon launched to LEO
7. dock HLS
8. astronauts splash down on a Dragon

Even if Blue Origin enters the game they'll go a similar route (maybe with Starliner, hopefully being flight approved till then).

There is no rational reason to keep SLS on the long run, even if costs are not considered, one launch per year is obviously not enough to mainain continous present on the Moon.

I'm sure NASA would love to do something like that. Not sure that Congress will let them. It's more about the politics of pork than the technology. Although I would be interested to see what that anonymous source actually said.

 

[Caleth]

Talk of a lunar colony sounds so scifi, and futuristic, but it is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. Historically, colonies were set up someplace for economic reasons, with the colonies supplying raw materials, sending them to the mother country for processing into finished goods, and then sold back to the colonies. Economics was their primary, secondary and tertiary reason to exist. That is not going to happen with the Moon for the foreseeable future. There is nothing on the Moon that would justify the expense of collecting it and shipping it back to Earth.

A lunar outpost is probably the more accurate description of what we will see. Similar to bases in Antarctica, they will be established for scientific research, and may not even be continuously occupied. As such, I don't think there will be a need for weekly trips to the Moon. Like the ISS, there will be resupply missions, maybe once every month or two, depending on the size of the crew and outpost, and crew rotation flights.

You're looking at a colony as something that has to spring from an economic need, but you're forgetting there's a more primal reason that that will be people on the moon. Defense.

With the cost to access space dropping as much as it has the impetus and the ability to put people up there goes up. LEO is now filling up with Satellites after SpaceX proved their reduced costs can make Constellation sats viable. But LEO is close enough existing infrastructures will suffice.

Luna is the next ultimate high ground as I believe the article called it too. There will be as we understand it limited spots that will work for colonies, at least at first. Said spots are likely to be political pawns especially as China continues its rise to greater power. There is near certainly military interest in boots on the moon for the longer term. Both as a boast of military and technological prowess and in a claim staking sense.

Yes we have a treaty saying the moon and space aren't supposed to be militarized, but we all know that won't last when countries get belligerent. Look at the degradation of the nuclear treaties we have.

So once there's an established "fort" on the moon there will be possible incentives to send more people up there. Yes the soldiers up there aren't going to be buying over priced Camaros and eating at the local diner next year.

But long term habitable space will need support crews, support crews will mean there's likely space for other people as well, say scientists from NASA looking for cheaper lodgings than building their own.

So as DARPA's RFI that was talked about in a prior article suggests maybe communal resource hubs like electricity and heating and the like can be built in such a way that it spurs commercial providers. Who now have to send their own techs up. Those techs will want things to do, or will have free time to do things like live stream a buggy ride on the moon.

Which in our social media age will get millions of views. That will prove to someone there's a tourism or marketing market to pounce on and off we go.

It's almost certainly not next decade or even two, but that's IMO the likely natural course. Political pissing contest for prime lunar real estate into a workable small colony, then naturally into something much longer term as more economic benefits are created.

 

[Wickwick]

You're looking at a colony as something that has to spring from an economic need, but you're forgetting there's a more primal reason that that will be people on the moon. Defense.

With the cost to access space dropping as much as it has the impetus and the ability to put people up there goes up. LEO is now filling up with Satellites after SpaceX proved their reduced costs can make Constellation sats viable. But LEO is close enough existing infrastructures will suffice.

Luna is the next ultimate high ground as I believe the article called it too. There will be as we understand it limited spots that will work for colonies, at least at first. Said spots are likely to be political pawns especially as China continues its rise to greater power. There is near certainly military interest in boots on the moon for the longer term. Both as a boast of military and technological prowess and in a claim staking sense.

Yes we have a treaty saying the moon and space aren't supposed to be militarized, but we all know that won't last when countries get belligerent. Look at the degradation of the nuclear treaties we have.

So once there's an established "fort" on the moon there will be possible incentives to send more people up there. Yes the soldiers up there aren't going to be buying over priced Camaros and eating at the local diner next year.

But long term habitable space will need support crews, support crews will mean there's likely space for other people as well, say scientists from NASA looking for cheaper lodgings than building their own.

So as DARPA's RFI that was talked about in a prior article suggests maybe communal resource hubs like electricity and heating and the like can be built in such a way that it spurs commercial providers. Who now have to send their own techs up. Those techs will want things to do, or will have free time to do things like live stream a buggy ride on the moon.

Which in our social media age will get millions of views. That will prove to someone there's a tourism or marketing market to pounce on and off we go.

It's almost certainly not next decade or even two, but that's IMO the likely natural course. Political pissing contest for prime lunar real estate into a workable small colony, then naturally into something much longer term as more economic benefits are created.

Relative to LEO, the lunar surface is low ground, not high. Lunar orbit is high "ground". But in space, high- or low doesn't really matter anymore. You're not just rolling down a hill. You have to use the same amount of propulsion to up or down. So it makes sense to have assets at whatever orbital shell you need or you just send everything from LEO or even earth's surface.

 

[BrangdonJ]

You're looking at a colony as something that has to spring from an economic need, but you're forgetting there's a more primal reason that that will be people on the moon. Defense.

With the cost to access space dropping as much as it has the impetus and the ability to put people up there goes up. LEO is now filling up with Satellites after SpaceX proved their reduced costs can make Constellation sats viable. But LEO is close enough existing infrastructures will suffice.

Luna is the next ultimate high ground as I believe the article called it too. There will be as we understand it limited spots that will work for colonies, at least at first. Said spots are likely to be political pawns especially as China continues its rise to greater power. There is near certainly military interest in boots on the moon for the longer term. Both as a boast of military and technological prowess and in a claim staking sense.

Yes we have a treaty saying the moon and space aren't supposed to be militarized, but we all know that won't last when countries get belligerent. Look at the degradation of the nuclear treaties we have.

So once there's an established "fort" on the moon there will be possible incentives to send more people up there. Yes the soldiers up there aren't going to be buying over priced Camaros and eating at the local diner next year.

But long term habitable space will need support crews, support crews will mean there's likely space for other people as well, say scientists from NASA looking for cheaper lodgings than building their own.

So as DARPA's RFI that was talked about in a prior article suggests maybe communal resource hubs like electricity and heating and the like can be built in such a way that it spurs commercial providers. Who now have to send their own techs up. Those techs will want things to do, or will have free time to do things like live stream a buggy ride on the moon.

Which in our social media age will get millions of views. That will prove to someone there's a tourism or marketing market to pounce on and off we go.

It's almost certainly not next decade or even two, but that's IMO the likely natural course. Political pissing contest for prime lunar real estate into a workable small colony, then naturally into something much longer term as more economic benefits are created.

Is that begging the question? There's no need for a large military presence to defend a colony that doesn't exist. And the military themselves don't have much interest in the Moon. It's too far away both in time and in delta-v to be useful for attacks on Earth, or Earth orbit. If there's a base for science or tourism, there may be some military role in defending it, but it would be proportionate.

It's possible a Lunar colony could be sustained by tourism, if that ever gets cheap enough. There are plenty of places on Earth where tourism is by far the dominant industry and the one that supports the others. However, that's a big "if".

I've long believed that the place for a colony is Mars, and the place for a base is the Moon. That's partly because of the natural resources available in the two places. Mars is tough but it potentially has everything needed; the Moon is tougher and doesn't, so far as we know. And it's partly because of travel times. Staff can rotate in and out of a Moon base on a monthly (or six-monthly) basis, for example, which isn't possible with Mars. If someone gets pregnant on the Moon, they can return to Earth, have the baby, then go back. Not an option with Mars. So there may be a base on the Moon, similar to the ones in the Arctic, that never grows into a colony.

 

[xWidget]

China on the other hand has basically stuck with the Russian propaganda narrative throughout the invasion. That is blaming the west and not laying any blame whatsoever at Putins feet. They are intensifying economic and political cooperation. As signalled amongst other things by their "no limits partnership" and regular top level visits.

[...]

I see that you have have fallen victim to a propaganda narrative. But it's not a Western one, it's the Rusian-Chinese narrative. And I am not sure you are aware to what extent you are parroting what the autocrats want you to think.

I really doubt China is falling to any propaganda from outside their country.

As best as I can tell, Russia is just another resource for China to drain to fuel its own expansion. Chinese labor costs have been going up as quality of life improves, but Russian labor is (and will continue to be) extremely cheap. Russian fossil fuels also cost well below market rate thanks to US sanctions.

As for Russia invading Ukraine, that's not really something China would care about. They have no economic or cultural interest with small eastern European countries. China's much more likely to intervene in African conflicts if anything, due to their recent large investments in some parts there. I'm sure if Russia did anything China truly didn't like they could make them heel in short order.

 

[Caleth]

Is that begging the question? There's no need for a large military presence to defend a colony that doesn't exist. And the military themselves don't have much interest in the Moon. It's too far away both in time and in delta-v to be useful for attacks on Earth, or Earth orbit. If there's a base for science or tourism, there may be some military role in defending it, but it would be proportionate.

It's possible a Lunar colony could be sustained by tourism, if that ever gets cheap enough. There are plenty of places on Earth where tourism is by far the dominant industry and the one that supports the others. However, that's a big "if".

I've long believed that the place for a colony is Mars, and the place for a base is the Moon. That's partly because of the natural resources available in the two places. Mars is tough but it potentially has everything needed; the Moon is tougher and doesn't, so far as we know. And it's partly because of travel times. Staff can rotate in and out of a Moon base on a monthly (or six-monthly) basis, for example, which isn't possible with Mars. If someone gets pregnant on the Moon, they can return to Earth, have the baby, then go back. Not an option with Mars. So there may be a base on the Moon, similar to the ones in the Arctic, that never grows into a colony.

Why did half the forts in America exist? Not because they were defending colonies but because they were claiming territory. Many of the inital fort placed out on the "Western Frontier" ie the Ohio Kentucky Tennessee area weren't defending colonies and towns.

They were put there for the express purpose of forming a bulwark against another "nation' (I'm not sure how best to refer to the Native Americans of this time period.) but to press claims on potentially valuable territory that someone else has or might have.


Just like America set boots on the Moon to prove they were "better" than Russia and win the Space Race because they couldn't be seen as falling behind. China and America have both stated they will return they both want to settle some kind of outpost or colony.

Once that happens and you'be wrapped geopolitical incentives around it the whole concept will gain a weight to it that purely commercial endeavors will not have. There won't be worries about next quarter's reports and generally once we've locked military funding in prying that loose is hard. Few if anyone wants to be the one seen as ceding ground to "our enemies." Which if America or China leaves and the other stays would be how it's viewed.

Additionally from the Artemis side you'd take the geopolitical hit with all our partners that have been brought on.

Which is my original point there are geo political and military implications that just get ignored and once you have either a base or a colony the other will naturally follow. Build a strictly civilian base and the military will want their own as well, build a strictly civilian one and the military will want one. Now you have 2-3 bases maybe more depending on what the real estate looks like. If there are only a handful of A tier sites for a base then those will get claimed fast. Because once the land rush starts FOMO will set in.

It's sort of like colonizing the "New World." Once one group proved it was there and possible others started wanting to do it for numerous reasons. No nation likes to feel like they are falling behind. Then the question sets in who's building these? Would a venture like Axiom setup and rent out Lunar bases to non space faring nations that want to get into the game? We don't need to just be talking about blatant tourism from the ultra rich.

As for colonies/bases and Mars V the Moon. That's a tough question, IMO. Because while it's a three day trip to the Moon and it has less stuff that nearness makes it tempting in a way that Mars is not. But does the balance of higher resource demands outweigh the benefits that being closer offer? Is it more politically viable to make a case for the Moon over Mars. Is the "looming threat" on the Moon something that would seem more real to an average citizen than "They're taking Mars."

Because you can't extricate politics from human endeavors.

@Wickwick I respect you, but you're being incredibly pedantic over a statement about a political "high ground." Yes space literally above our heads is "higher ground" than being on the ground on the Moon. But my whole post was about the military and political impacts not just the technical aspects. Having a satellite in orbit around the Moon would not be the same has having boots claiming ownership of say Shackleton Crater. I think you know that there is a significant difference between the two which was my point.

I even end the whole post specifically talking about political pissing contests and you focus on a narrow definition of high ground. I get that putting some sats in orbit around Earth or the Moon probably has more generalized utility from a technical standpoint. But none of this is purely about what it technically the best it's roughly coequally about what is politically useful. When one nation wants to claim superiority and one wants to not lose it that's not strictly about who's got some satellites in a good spot.

 

[Wickwick]

@Wickwick I respect you, but you're being incredibly pedantic over a statement about a political "high ground." Yes space literally above our heads is "higher ground" than being on the ground on the Moon. But my whole post was about the military and political impacts not just the technical aspects. Having a satellite in orbit around the Moon would not be the same has having boots claiming ownership of say Shackleton Crater. I think you know that there is a significant difference between the two which was my point.

I even end the whole post specifically talking about political pissing contests and you focus on a narrow definition of high ground. I get that putting some sats in orbit around Earth or the Moon probably has more generalized utility from a technical standpoint. But none of this is purely about what it technically the best it's roughly coequally about what is politically useful. When one nation wants to claim superiority and one wants to not lose it that's not strictly about who's got some satellites in a good spot.

My assumption about you "high ground" statement is that it is a tactical situation as was presented in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Tactically, having assets on the moon is no more helpful than having them on the surface of the earth. Perhaps one needs to find a different descriptive phrase than that one as the advantage of high ground for terrestrial combat has millennia of baggage. Even its usage with morality ("moral high ground") assumes one is higher than another.

As to your premise that the military will be defending positions on the moon for ... reasons, I find very not compelling. Should an adversary threaten our assets on the lunar surface, we will simply destroy their supply lines from LEO to Luna and they'll starve to death. Or we'll bombard their base with a million steel BBs. Or any number of other military responses that don't require troops on the ground. Nobody's space economy is so robust that they can withstand a blockade or intentional remote bombardment. And by the time economies are built up enough to have reinforced (underground) bunkers that can withstand penetrators at 10+ km/s, then there will be enough people and material on the moon that it could rightly be called a colony and not a research station.

 

[Nurep]

I really doubt China is falling to any propaganda from outside their country.

As best as I can tell, Russia is just another resource for China to drain to fuel its own expansion. Chinese labor costs have been going up as quality of life improves, but Russian labor is (and will continue to be) extremely cheap. Russian fossil fuels also cost well below market rate thanks to US sanctions.

As for Russia invading Ukraine, that's not really something China would care about. They have no economic or cultural interest with small eastern European countries. China's much more likely to intervene in African conflicts if anything, due to their recent large investments in some parts there. I'm sure if Russia did anything China truly didn't like they could make them heel in short order.

Presuming with small eastern European countries you also talk about the biggest country in Europe, namely Ukraine?

The point is China and Russia are on one axis. When China invades Taiwan Russia will back it up and pay back the support it receives from China at the moment.

There is a reason Taiwanese diplomats are encouraging the US to support Ukraine. It's about a believable deterrent, and the idea that the US will stand with allies when it comes right down to it.

 

[Imbrium]

Again, the historical context for the establishment of colonies was always economic. Why did those European nations establish forts to claim territory? Because of the resources those territories held, whether something as mundane as timber, or of greater value, such as gold and furs. If there wasn't anything of value there, they wouldn't have invested the resources to claim and develop them. There are plenty of places on Earth that none of the colonizing powers tried to claim and develop, because they were economically worthless. Today, if your thesis is correct, Antarctica should be overrun with military bases, and hordes of tourists descending upon it. There are a lot of scientific bases, and some tourists do visit, but there are no Antarctic colonies, and likely never will be. Even though it is far more hospitable than the Moon ever will be, and slightly easier to resupply, it is still not economically viable to establish a colony. There will be scientific outposts on the Moon, but I doubt they will be continuously occupied, especially if the US sticks with SLS to put the boots on the ground.

 

[Chopfuna]

Not going to defend Russia. But look up how many civilians were killed in Iraq, and compare that to Ukraine.

Then look up how many wars been started by China, and how many civilians have been killed by China in the past 40 years. China may have killed lots of its own people (hard to say for sure, as I am bathed in Western propaganda). But deaths due to international interventions by China? Not so much.

And if you are going to blame China for supporting Russia, do you similarly condemn India (a purported US ally) and Turkiye (a freaking NATO member). Heck, as of 2023, the EU was still purchasing some $18.4 Billion of Russian fossil fuels.

The real world is a lot messier than the propaganda that our media delivers.

Does the China info include the multi year war with Vietnam?

 

[xWidget]

Presuming with small eastern European countries you also talk about the biggest country in Europe, namely Ukraine?

From China's perspective, yes. If Ukraine stopped interacting with China in any way, including trade, China wouldn't really care all that much in the grand scheme of things.

The point is China and Russia are on one axis. When China invades Taiwan Russia will back it up and pay back the support it receives from China at the moment.

There is a reason Taiwanese diplomats are encouraging the US to support Ukraine. It's about a believable deterrent, and the idea that the US will stand with allies when it comes right down to it.

What I mean to say is that Russia is more or less subservient to China. Right now they have a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"-type of alliance. If Russia's Soviet nostalgia got in the way of any of China's ambitions, we'd see that scaled back real quick. Certainly China isn't subscribing to the idea that Ukraine "belongs" to Russia in any sense, which the original post seemed to imply.