Comment by hdivider

IMHO the previous race ended because there wasn't that much to be achieved with the technology at hand at that time. They just pivoted to space stations, a space(!) with low hanging fruit.

So if US ends up beating China on this, it will all depend if there's something feasible to do next. I'm under impression that everything done in this new space age so far is just a re-do with the cheaper and better technology. SpaceX reaping that but I am not sure if there's any drastically better capabilities. Can't wait for humans on Mars however I don't expect this to be anything more than vanity project.

> China is more stable than the Soviet Union was in the 1960s

Xi literally just purged “the country’s top military leader, Gen. Zhang Youxia, and an associate, Gen. Liu Zhenli” [1].

This is the mark of a dictator. Not the Soviet Union at its finest.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/us/politics/china-xi-mili...

Theresa though i read somewhere that i tend to agree with - with the level of tech and space experience that China currently is capable of , they could possibly launch a return mission as early as next year(if they so chose).

However they have their own timetable and milestones , hence going to the moon has already been earmarked with followup misson for a lunar base and further missions already penned in. So less of a race if one party is just doing their own thing.

We see the same dynamic viz Taiwan , western commentariat seeks to impose deadlines and spin rationales when they never materialise. Or the AI race where China keeps churning out OSS models while American labs are in a sel declared 'race' for supremacy.

In the same way Space Race 1.0 kicked the US into putting engineering at the forefront, I look forward to Space Race 2.0. Even if China kicks our (U.S.) ass, I'm be hoping for a sea-change in our attitudes (in fact, the US getting their asses handed to them might be the best medicine we need right now).

(Why do I use the word ass so often?)

TBH pretty retarded to eat up American spacerace 2.0 / rivalry / competition framing when space is like ~0.1% of GDP spend in both US/PRC. At least bump up to half a percent for a proper space race spending. Of course true purpose of framing is likely to keep US space spent at 0.1% instead of 0.01%.

> compete for the best spots

Nothing in outer space treaty that enables first come / first serve squatting. Second mover can always park next door. If anything OST allows joint scientific observation, which allows actors to build right next to each other.

The entire best spot narrative is US trying to bake in landgrab provisions via Artemis Accords (not international/customary law) for safety zones, i.e. landgrab by exclusion - if US build first, someone else can't because it might effect US safety. But reality is non signatories not obliged to honour Artemis. PRC's Artemis, i.e. International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) doesn't have safety zones baked into language yet, but they're going to want to push for some sort of deconfliction as matter of lawfare eventually.

But shit hits fan, and country absolutely need that moon base, everyone who can will be shanty-towning it up in Shackleton, where prime real estate (80-90% illumination windows) are like a few 300m strips. No one is going to settle for shit sloppy seconds because Artemis dictates 2km safety buffer. Exhaust plume from competitor landing next door damage your base? Your fault for not hardening it in first place, building paper mache bases and trying to exclude others under guise of safety is just not going to fly. With all the terrestrial geopolitical implications that entails.

Do we already know what the best spots on the Moon are or will that be determined by the early missions doing survey?

> This space race is different for one core reason: China is more stable than the Soviet Union was in the 1960s.

> If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth.

This is kind of underselling the situation. China is more stable than the U.S. China is also beating the pants off the U.S. in several sectors and in the ones they're not, they're rapidly catching up.

When China beats the U.S. to the Moon, they will also have surpassed the U.S. in several other sectors as well at the same time, all while having a more stable government and continuing to increase the size of their middle class.

> If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth.

The Soviet Union won the "space race" of course (or perhaps Germany did if you define it as suborbital space flight), it just lost the "man on the moon race". In any case, after losing the man on the moon race, the Soviet Union did not just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. They continued to invest a great deal in their civil, scientific, and military space capabilities after 1969.

Will the Chinese Communist Party similarly collapse in the 2050s? Perhaps not, but they will be going through significant demographic decline from the 2030s; they are increasingly in conflict with the west and with their territorial neighbors; they may become involved in significant military conflicts (e.g., over Taiwan); their current leader has consolidated power and succession could be spicy. So who knows? It's not inconceivable. China would surely continue and continue a space program as Russia has.

>If we beat the Chinese somehow

What a horrible attitude.