This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
China

American Moonwalkers Suggest Cooperation With China's Moon Plans

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 1, 2013
Filed under , , , ,

China’s bold lunar plan, Craig Covault, Aerospace America
“Astronauts Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 and Eugene Cernan of Apollo 17 tell Aerospace America that engineering details emerging from China’s first robotic Moon lander suggest it is a formal precursor to a manned lunar module that would carry Chinese astronauts to the surface of the Moon around 2030. In their view, the time may be right for NASA to begin direct cooperation with China on the return of humans–both Chinese and American–to the Moon as a prelude to international manned missions to Mars.”
More Chang’e 3 Images on Flickr
earlier China posts

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

39 responses to “American Moonwalkers Suggest Cooperation With China's Moon Plans”

  1. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    At face value, I like the idea a lot. What does the United States have to be ashamed about by allowing the Chinese to be the 2nd Nation to land on the Moon? In cooperatives, there is always something gained by both sides even if one side has considerably greater expertise and capabilities. And like Soyuz-Apollo, it represents valuable international cooperation and there is no questioning that every little bit will help, given the challenges humanity faces in this century. Lastly, this can be an equal partnership. It is no surprise that an emerging country such as China would have the desire to do something extraordinary and challenging. It is not a simple and not an inexpensive mission.

    The frontiers of Science are not just Space today as they seemed to be in 1960. The frontiers have expanded as much into Biology, Energy, and Materials, Electronics/Sensors. Funds (private and public) for basic research are stretched over every discipline much more evenly today than in 1960. So there is no justification for placing considerably more into space exploration than say into the bio-engineering. My point being is that NASA must continue to work within a $18B budget. It is the process of setting goals and mandates and also internal management structure that must change. And so, working with China has economic, international and technical advantages for both sides. It seems like an excellent idea from these old guys.

    • yokohama2010 says:
      0
      0

      we should be cooperating with those countries which have a developed democratic political system and an independent judiciary…

      India and Japan meet that criteria…

      invite them to Mars / the moon / L2

      China certainly does not.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        China is evolving, albeit slowly, in the direction of a more open society. But more important, China and the US will be the world’s superpowers for a generation. We still cooperate with Russia, and the reason we do it is that it helps to reduce tensions and develop trust between potential nuclear adversaries. The same considerations apply with China. We should collaborate because it is in our best interests to do so. However I think collaboration on the ISS would make more sense as a first step than starting a new Apollo program.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        That’s a smart thing to do if we want to isolate China, but isolating China may not result in a peaceful future and certainly won’t result in democracy coming to China. Working together with them now is a great way to possibly avoid many problems in the future.

      • Jafafa Hots says:
        0
        0

        But having them make everything we buy, THAT’S ok.
        Rely on them for everything we use, all our consumer goods, loans… make China the backbone of our economy, all great.

        But let them get a symbolic boost? No way, that could be dangerous!

      • Mader Levap says:
        0
        0

        USA cooperates with Russia (that is even bigger pseudodemocracy than USA) without problems.

  2. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    Constellation’s CG renderings of the Altair lander look cooler. Overall, I think NASA’s space exploration visualizations are superior to these illustrations of what China has built.

    • Brian_M2525 says:
      0
      0

      Constellation’s renderings were just that-artwork. Most of these images are of a real unmanned lander-actual hardware- that appears to be size-able enough to carry people at some time in the future to the surface of the moon given some modifications.

  3. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think there’s any reason for the Chinese collaborate on a Moon landing. The prestige and technical achievement are better if done alone. Mars might be more appropriate for everyone to collaborate on.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      The primary Chinese goal is not prestige but stability and economic growth. Although there are different points of view in China, many believe their geopolitical goals are best achieved by participating in multinational programs. That is why, being excluded from the International Space Station, China announced they would invite other countries to collaborate with their own space station program.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      I would agree. The primary thing China would look for is the prestige and the technical knowledge from the US. This last item is one of the main reasons for ITAR and I doubt there would be much benefit to the US.

    • Rocky J says:
      0
      0

      Mars is our target. The Chinese space agency has 1/10th the budget of NASA. They have no heavy lifter. Under the present circumstances, their 2030 target for landing taikonauts on the Moon is accurate. With such a small budget, it is no surprise at all that their lunar rover resembles the MER Mars rovers.

      There is no other way than ISS to invite China to participate in manned flight. If NASA is to set a path to a manned landing on Mars, it has to be with the ESA and Russians. If China is to participate in a Mars mission, what technology would they provide? What subsystem or module could they be asked to provide?

      Simply landing taikonauts or astronauts on the Moon is not a stepping stone to Mars. There was a time 30 years ago, had the Shuttle not been on the way, when the Moon could have been used to prove construction techniques for a Mars habitat. It just doesn’t make sense now – technically and financially, to demonstrate, to use the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars. [I think it would be valuable to have an inexpensive lunar rover (JPL MER design), small lightweight, cheap to land and place a half dozen on the Moon]

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        The next person on the moon should be a tourist.

        Whatever happened to the plan to take Cammron around the moon in a Russian vehicle??? Can’t falcon heavy easily do an Apollo 13 free return? Could a falcon Heavy stop by ISS then do an Apollo 13 free return with an ISS crew? Have ISS crew take a scenic trip home?

        Couldn’t a dock be put on the Falcon Heavy’s second stage (in the trunk) so dragon could reconnect to it after picking up ISS crew, then relight to the moon and a direct earth splash down???

        How does dragons trunk connect to the second stage anyway?? Just design the explosive bolts to be some type of clamp right???

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          I just realized that NASA wouldn’t want their astronauts to take a scenic trip around the moon on the way home. That would be to risky for them. What if something went wrong! They could lose funding.

          The next person around the moon should be a tourist with a little gumption.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            You have no knowledge of what is “too risky” for NASA. NASA does not get to make many of its own decisions. NASA has to answer to Congress, the President, and the public. Exactly how easy do you think that is?

            As you’ve apparently forgot, NASA has dealt with a significant amount of things that have gone wrong, things that have gone wrong and cost the lives of 17 astronauts, 17 lives you’re essentially ignoring. Lest you forget, NASA has come back from those tragedies with better systems and better safeguards.

            Perhaps you should consider that NASA has learned something valuable, something about which you are unaware. Perhaps your abject dismissal of NASA and its capabilities prevents you from seeing what NASA has done and is capable of.

            You should note that SpaceX doesn’t really have anyone to answer to if in the future they have to deal with such a loss, do they? They don’t have to answer the public.

            It’s popular and easy to be cavalier about risk when you’re not in a position that feels the weight of that risk. Given your wealth of knowledge about SpaceX, what will be the response of SpaceX, if they happen to lose lives on a mission? Will they be as cavalier about such things? Surely you should be able to accurately predict their response, right?

        • Rocky J says:
          0
          0

          Next person on the moon should be virtual, i.e. send lunar rovers remotely controlled in real time with some autonomy (JPL’s Surface Nav software). Dragon has a service module connected to the final stage. They could use ISS as a way point but whoever does free returns for profit might have a habitat (like a Bigelow module) that they rendezvous with in LEO. That would make the Lunar fly-around much more comfortable, entertaining, etc.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        I think if you try to look at this from the perspective of 10 and 20 years from now, instead of the current state of affairs, it looks quite different. Is the hardware that the US and China each have now what would be used on a collaborative lunar mission? I suspect not. Everything would have to be reworked. And in the case of a Mars collaboration, I don’t think anybody’s current hardware would be part of the program.

        So, if we assume new design and development, and if we admit the unavoidable, that China’s (reported) space budget may be small now, but they probably have much greater financial resources to draw upon if they so choose, then the questions of who can offer what and who might get left in the dust perhaps look a little different.

        More extensive US collaboration before now could have benefited everyone. For example, the US space tracking and data communications capabilities (TDRS, etc.) could have been upgraded to higher capacity and used by everyone in space all along for a lot less money than everybody building their own system and competing over bandwidth. It also would have been a big step forward in diplomacy and protection — if all countries were on the same data/comm system there would be no way for any country to hide military or dangerous activities from the rest of the world. Unlike in the past, in today’s world such things are possible since economic considerations are more powerful incentives than almost anything else.

  4. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Great photos! Reminds me of Grumman Bethpage around 1969 with several LMs under construction.

    I wonder how such a collaboration would work especially in the human space biz? China would provide the money, the manufacturing , hardware, systems and technical expertise,and the US would provide?? Maybe the US could provide retired astronauts who could provide guidance for how it was done 45 years ago?

  5. Frank Coffin says:
    0
    0

    Firefly/Serenity anyone?

  6. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The only way this can happen is if Frank Wolf, the ultra-anti-Chinese Republican who controls NASA policy by budget fiat, is somehow displaced. Since his district appears to be solidly Republican, this can only happen if the House goes Democratic, which is almost impossible since every state is now so effectively gerrymandered. Unless Republican business leaders interested in exporting to China decide Wolf has outlived his usefulness.

    • Rocky J says:
      0
      0

      Yes. Just looked at his bio. He’s a lifer, stuck with him in Congress. 74 years old, he’ll be there until 2020 at least. We are also stuck with the 3 senators – Milkulski, Nelson and Shelby through the rest of this decade. Nelson is the youngster at 72. He’s pretty healthy and could remain for 2 more terms (12 yrs). The other two will have one more term each unless they do the Strom Thurmond shuffle. The problem with the senators and congressmen is that they don’t try to make change and primarily protect the NASA funding for their constituents. Gerrymandering – yes, most likely the Dems will only narrow the gap and not take back the House. Even if they did, NASA’s budget and management has been terrible under either party control.

  7. BenjaminBrown says:
    0
    0

    I agree that it would be better for both nations to work together, but considering the tensions between both nations despite our strong economic partnerships that seems doubtful. As for whether or not they pull off a manned moon landing, I’m not so sure whether they’re actually going to do it. Even today its a massive operation, and while doable it would require the Chinese space program to take a giant leap in capability. Not to mention money spent.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. As for the US, we have the capability of going back to the moon before China if we wanted to and without needing anyone but the Europeans possibly. The Falcon Heavy and SLS will both be ready before China launches any heavy lifter to be sure (At least not without funneling huge amounts of money into their space program suddenly).

    I mention this, because I want to make it clear that the reason the United States wont go back to the moon has nothing to do with money. It has nothing to do with capability. It has everything to do with a lack of will to do so. Which makes me sad, as Americans we should be pushing the limits of science and technology and yet we’re willingly throwing that capability away. Not just with NASA, but Europe already out matches us when it comes to physics and astronomy. It isn’t like this stuff is THAT expensive, its much cheaper than going to war and much cheaper to social programs whether you are for or against them.

    Eh, I guess the question is whether or not the United States wants to remain a great nation and so far the jury is still out.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I would suggest that it is about money. In order to go to the moon we would have to spend considerably more tax dollars. That means either borrowing more money, much of it from China, or raising taxes on wealthy Americans. Taxes were much higher, particularly on the upper classes, during the space race, and there were few complaints. But today many Americans have been told, and believe, that they have a right to keep “all” the money they “earn”. Patriotism is “shrinking government”, not contributing to American accomplishments. Wealthy Americans, and even middle class space enthusiasts will pay a dime more in taxes if they have any way to avoid it. So we will be stuck with continuing resolutions and flat budgets.

      • BenjaminBrown says:
        0
        0

        To go to the moon or to Mars would cost considerably less than what we spent on bailing out the banks/etc, and on both Iraq/Afghanistan. Think about that. What have we got for that?

        Well, the financial industry is still very against taking responsibility for their actions because it would be “un-american” if big businesses couldn’t be greedy at the expense of everyone else. Thus there is little to prevent them from crashing the economy again in seek of high short term gains. Iraq is more friendly with Iran than ever, and Afghanistan is likely to remain a Taliban stronghold for years to come but at least part of the country is in corrupt western loving hands. Totally worth more than a decade of war.

        I agree that it is about money in the sense that you’re talking about, about this mindset that we can’t afford to do anything anymore but when you look at the numbers that mindset doesn’t add up. Though it is true, before the US makes any progress forward again we’ll have to shed this misconception that we are broke and should stop doing anything until times are good again.

        Hint: Times will never be good again unless we invest in our future. Duh.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          I agree our nation needs more investment of tax dollars in research and development, and I think we should try to build public support for it. But regardless of what we believe, selling this to the taxpayers will be tough.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      The Chinese have an advantage in terms of money in that once you know that something can be done, and more or less how, then it’s a lot cheaper to create it the second time. That is a major difference between the US and Chinese lunar programs, so far.

  8. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    To discuss a US-China manned lunar program I think we have to make some things clear first.

    One: Who, exactly, would be involved in such a program and how would it be managed. Neither government builds the necessary high-tech vehicles and equipment. It’s all done by contractors in the US. Who does it in China, industrial contractors or military personnel, or both? Before you can designate the bosses you’d have to be clear on who the worker are, and be satisfied that it’s a compatible and allowable combination.

    Two: Would it be a 50:50 partnership, or major and minor partners? If the latter, who is the senior? If the former, how are you going to make it work? This could be the biggest hurdle.

    Three: Whose LVs and spacecraft would you use (both countries have their own), or are our aged astronauts proposing to start from scratch with new, total compromise designs?

    Four: As always, there is the money problem. Which programs and projects are Aldrin and Cernan suggesting the US cancel in order to get the money for a collaborative manned lunar program? I don’t know what price tag they’ve come up with, if any, but it may well exceed the entire NASA budget.

    And I would say that there are several more issues of this nature that need to be specified before anyone can make a meaningful assessment of their proposal.

    The article claims that China’s lunar plans are merely repeating what the US and USSR did 45 years ago and seems (to me) to imply that there is little or no value in that. However, if China is destined to go it alone to the Moon and then Mars, which seems like a real possibility at this point, then they must prove these capabilities, and the data, to themselves before getting into a position where they are dependent on them. This would seem to be part of the much-proposed using the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars approach.

    Also, we have Ma’s statement that, “The Chang’e 3 mission makes use of a plethora of innovative technologies, ‘secret weapons.’ It is an extremely difficult mission that carries great risk“; which makes me wonder if the Chinese decision-makers have any interest at all in a cooperative lunar program.

  9. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    I think at this point the Chinese probably have more first hand experience with recent hardware development, and building and launching manned spacecraft. In the US perhaps Space-X and Dragon could bring some experience to the table. In the future years you might add Boeing and eventually Lockheed Martin. But both of those are some years off. NASA experience has largely faded into the distant past.

    NASA has not been directly involved in the design, development and construction of a spacecraft in about 20 years-since the first elements of the ISS were being completed. Since then almost everything has been done by foreign ‘partners’. NASA is good at spending money but the only experience it has bought is in low earth orbit operations. Planetary missions will not be flown the same way so a lot of that experience is likely not applicable.

  10. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Absolutely not. The Chinese have stated that they want there rightful share of the moon’s resources. We must get back to the moon soon to make sure that rightful share does not mean all. Space is for the US. We need to lead.

    • Jafafa Hots says:
      0
      0

      “Space is for the US.”

      Space is a really… I mean REALLY big place. It’s for one country?

  11. Enceladus says:
    0
    0

    The Chinese communists spend a lot of time and money trying to hack U.S. computer systems. And some in here want to work closely with them. Just a bit on the stupid side.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      It is smart to work closely with your adversaries. When you engage your foe in a positive way you stand the best chance of no longer having a foe. This is just common sense. The problem is with Chinas growing economic might many fear this “foe” and we use all our resources on silly things like war machines. Mr Rappolee has the right idea. Musk not trying to patent Spacex creations since they will be stolen anyway has the right idea.

      Lol we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

      American Citision trying to get human race multi planet before its to late.

      • Steven Rappolee says:
        0
        0

        Thanks DTARS!

        I remember the Apollo/Soyuz docking test project, so lets do a commercial Chinese test.

        The moon and mars could benefit from an ISS plus china partnership
        and a ISS plus china partnership with commercial crew and cargo could get us to L2 and Deimos earlier while increasing commercial flight rates beyond the existing ISS program.

        all commercial crew/cargo and international vehicles should be able to dock with the others…………………..

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Steven I feel safer with China writing Elon a check than I do borrowing that money from China to pay the debt, to give that money to congress, to waste it on exploration like SLS

    • Jafafa Hots says:
      0
      0

      How much time and money do you think we spend hacking into THEIR systems?

      If you think the answer is “none” you’re a fool.

  12. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    (A)We should add China to the ISS program as a pathfinder/confidence builder.Where can we dock a Chinese module on ISS?

    (B)We should send Dragon and Cygnus to a Chinese space station since this would not involve a lot of R&D and the costs of a pressurized module.The trade is we get Americans on the Chinese space station and the added logistics enables a larger crew on the chinese space station.
    This adds a added boost to commercial crew and cargo, Dragon tourism opportunity?

    (C)Encourage Russian Soyuz and Japan cargo carrier to the Chinese station.This is trade for Japanese and russian crew members.This increases or replaces lost Soyuz production rates,and maybe adds another space tourism opportunity.

    (D) fly an american IRSU rover on a future Chinese lunar lander.we trade EDL for a chinese Mars lander.

  13. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    The question extends past China to other countries and includes the question of whether we can stay on course (any course!) or just wonder from one exotic plan which will never be funded to another. Our lawmakers believe based on a moon landing in 1969 we will be number one in all space activities forever even if we do little or nothing. Based upon our record since 1973 it is clear we will never be the sole leader. The question becomes can we cooperate and maintain some sort of science space competency and remain in the game at all or will we just pretend and withdraw from meaningful cooperation with other countries. The reason other countries are considering cooperating with China is not because she is better. She is just more stable.

  14. Malaysian Chink says:
    0
    0

    Most of you folks think that rocket system can be copied as easily as you look over the shoulder of someone who has done it first.

    The US has been basking in past glory and savoring yesterdecade achievements. But they can never replicated those feats with the techno of Apollo era and applying it in today’s environment. Those designs are grossly out-of-date. If you want to punch another 14T in your till be my guest.

    If you do it the third time, even though Soviet has done it first time, US second time, and China should have a much easier task right?

    How about India, doing it the fourth time, they still have difficulty coming up with their third stage cryogenic engine for a 4 ton lift. The Indians bought one from the Russo for the GSLV 2011 Christmas launch and and yet 2 years on, they are still struggling with it. That launch was an unintended Christmas fireworks and Indians do not celebrate that festive as much as they want to be.

    They are still struggling as we speak. The Indians are much smarter than the Chinese software wise and they could have a much easier taks hacking into NASA systems right. Oh I forgot, the Indians never hack, only Chinese do. Chinese are the evil doers in the world today.

    Don’t think they Chinese have copied the Soyuz, for the Shenzhou design. It only resembles the Soyuz in shape ONLY and nothing else.

    The most important component – metallurgy. I bet the Soyuz could not even come close the Shenzhou in terms of reliability. I do not think the Russo can reverse engineered their own design of the Shenzhou, the extreme light weight material of the Shenzhou spacecraft is indigenous Chinese design. No one else has that period.

    If you want a layman illustration, anyone can buy a real samurai sword, “blue dragon sword” in kanji but no one except some Japanese master sword makers can come up with one.

    Any of you folks are talking about Chinese copying rocket system,
    WHAT YOU GOT FOR BRAINS.

  15. Malaysian Chink says:
    0
    0

    One guy mentioned, what Chinese can bring to the table for space cooperation.

    I can name many, NOW just one. how about automatic rendezvous and autonomous docking between two UN-manned spacecrafts.

    The Change’3 is for soft landing and a rover. You guys know what Change’s 4 will do. It will have an orbiter, a lander, a rover plus a launcher to bring soil sample back to the orbiter and then heads home for a totally remote control sample return.

    The Russian has done it before in the 60’s but the soil sample is only about 200 gm with no orbiter.

    China plans to have 2 kilogram lunar soil return, the difference, the automatic rendezvous followed by the autonomous docking between the launcher and the orbiter will make the difference.

    NO COUNTRY HAS DONE THAT BEFORE.

    The result is a much bigger cache of soil sample.

    The Chinese will use this approach to do a soil sample return from Mars. The heavy lift rocket of 25 ton to LEO is ready for the space port in Wenchang becomes online.

    The Chinese may be attempting a launch intensive rather than lift intensive approach to getting soil sample from Mars. The will launch an orbiter, then a rocket engine and join in space and head for mars,
    Next a lander, and a rover plus a launcher, then another rocket engine to power it to Mars. I believe that is what is on their card. They must have enough fuel in both engine to power for the return trip.

    The Chinese have stated that they can have a Mars soil sample return by 2030.

    The Chinese have stayed the course for all their timeline with the space feats so far and this will not be an exception. All they need to do is to alter the software algorithm for the Moon auto/autonomous approach because Mars will be 400 million miles away and autonomous docking is the only way to go and now ONLY Chinese has mastered this space feat.

    NO ONE ELSE HAS IT AS WE SPEAK