upvote
I believe that's the inevitable outcome.

The Chinese will build a moon base, as a sign from the Chinese government to the Chinese people that China is capable of cutting-edge engineering and science (notably a demonstration to their own citizens - when was the last time you heard about the Chinese space stations outside China?).

America seems a bit shaky in their determination to actually build a moon base, though having Jared Isaacman as administrator gives hope. But regardless of whether America is currently on track, a successful Chinese moon base won't stay without answer

reply
> when was the last time you heard about the Chinese space stations outside China?

Last year, when negative news of delayed astronaut return was all over American news, e.g. [1][2]. Apparently makes American astronauts onboard Boeing ship being stuck in space less embarrassing.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/science/space/china-space...

[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/05/china/china-shenzhou-20-a...

reply
The South Pole of the moon will end up one giant mega city due to it's constant sunlight. It will be a lot easier to get there once there is even one landing strip.
reply
> landing strip

Why are landing strips the big unlock? Blast effects? Tiny landing legs?

reply
You could land at 500 km/h on wheels and use breaks to stop. This makes it much safer and lowers how much propellant you need to bring to the moon by a lot. Similarly it makes getting back into lunar orbit much safer and easier because you can use electric motors to propel a craft to around 500 km/h before ditching the wheels and starting your chemical rockets. This lowers your propellant mass by 30%.

Also the landing strip can be designed to slowly go up hill which could help with the breaking phase as well.

reply
> you can use electric motors to propel a craft to around 500 km/h before ditching the wheels and starting your chemical rockets.

Makes me wonder if you could accelerate to orbital velocity using something like a maglev train and not have to worry about rockets at all.

reply
You can do that but it would require a track that is tens of kilometers long along with a magnetic levitation technology. My suggestion is something we can do right now with a basic landing strip. But yes a meglev is the end game. Needs to reach 8,570 km/h for moon orbital velocity.
reply
You would have to do at least a circulization burn no matter the budget spent on maglev.
reply
> lowers how much propellant you need to bring to the moon by a lot

Rough estimates? Mass drivers make sense. I haven’t seen the numbers for just compressing and leveling regolith.

reply
I don’t know why we are wasting all this money making it habitable for humans when robotics have taken such strides the last few decades. Manned missions made sense when we didn’t have these compute and robotic abilities we have today. Now, they are undue risk and cost and offer no real functionality but some misplaced national pride perhaps.
reply
Because it's better for Earth's biosphere to mine things like lithium on the moon rather than polluting our biosphere. The North and South pole of the moon also serves as an excellent staging ground to put solar energy collectors that can then transmit continuous concentrated power to Earth.

The moon is dangerous because there's no people and civilization is 5 days away at best but if there was already civilization at the moon you wouldn't think it was dangerous.

On top of that the materials on the moon are already "on the high ground" meaning you don't need to spend a lot of money on propellant to get it into orbit. So building space habitats and delivering them into an appropriate orbit on the moon is a tiny fraction of the fuel needed from Earth. To put this into perspective the Apollo Lunar Module only needed 2.2 Tons of propellant to get the upper part of it back into orbit to meet up with the service module. 2.2 tons of propellant is basically nothing with the scales we are talking about.

On top of that if we could produce the propellant on the moon the costs and logistics and difficulty of all of this drop significantly.

So in short the best possible way to lower the risk, cost, and provide functionality is to establish civilization on the moon and get to the industrial age there as quickly as possible.

We're doing it regardless of what you naysayers will say about it because it's the right thing to do for a thousand different reasons. And we're doing the robot thing too. At the same time.

reply
> when robotics have taken such strides the last few decades

One of those strides has been in characterising just how magnificent the human eye, mind and hand are at picking weird shit out of a background.

reply
Talk to me about the Mars rover that was unable to digna small hole to sample.
reply
One more very minor step towards making the human race meteor-proof.
reply
Our biology precludes that. We are adapted to life on earth. Sad to say but we should be seeding tardigrades, not humans, if we care about sustaining earth life after earth is destroyed.
reply
We use technology to do many things we are not biologically capable of. If we can use technology to remotely explore inhospitable environments, we can also use technology to wrap ourselves in a hospitable environment.
reply
I kind of have a soft spot for the human race, I think it's worth the extra effort to try, at least.
reply
I will give you that. I will be more than happy to see both reach there in mutual success. I do fear the blow back of the more tribalistic folks that will see it as a threat rather than success.
reply