China's rapid progress in race to the moon
https://arab.news/5vdsr
China is making rapid progress with the building of a new space network called the Queqiao constellation. This system is designed to connect Earth and the moon through reliable communications, navigation and observation tools. The goal is to support future lunar missions by placing satellites and spacecraft in key positions around the moon and in space between the Earth and the moon, including areas known as Lagrange points, where gravity allows objects to stay in place more easily. This infrastructure is essential for China's plans to explore, work and even build settlements on the moon in the coming decades.
China last month moved a small spacecraft named Tiandu-1 into an orbit that means it loops around Earth once for every three times the moon circles our planet. This special orbit gives it a predictable position relative to the moon over time, which helps in studying the complex pull of the gravity of both Earth and the moon.
Another key satellite, Queqiao-2, was launched last year and it is already helping China prepare for future moon landings. And the satellite DRO-B has entered a different kind of orbit and is now traveling through Lagrange points. These stable zones are where space stations or satellite hubs may one day be located.
In the US, the Artemis program is NASA's ambitious plan to return astronauts to the moon, establish a sustainable human presence there and use the lunar missions as a steppingstone for future Mars exploration. But Artemis has faced delays and budget uncertainties. The first uncrewed Artemis 1 mission successfully flew around the moon in 2022, but upcoming crewed missions have been pushed back. It has lately been shaped by political uncertainty and doubts over its focus.
The moon objective might have regained importance in the US following the falling-out of Trump and Musk
Khaled Abou Zahr
The moon objective might have regained importance in the past month following the falling-out of US President Donald Trump and SpaceX's Elon Musk. Musk has been a long-time supporter of going straight to Mars and has publicly stated that moon missions are a waste of resources and time. His closeness to Trump had hence cast doubts on the moon projects.
Musk's preferred nominee for NASA chief, Jared Isaacman, had also been seen as shifting national space policy in favor of Mars. It is worth noting that Isaacman had great support from the space business community. However, Trump withdrew his nomination and Musk's subsequent exit from the White House has, according to media reports, given the moon mission backers the opportunity to shift NASA's focus firmly back to lunar exploration.
In the race for the moon, the outcome is not yet clear. The White House has proposed a cut to NASA's budget for fiscal year 2026, aiming to slash nearly 25 percent of the agency's funding — from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. This would be the largest single-year budget reduction in NASA's history.
The most severe cuts would hit NASA's science programs, which are set to lose 47 percent of their funding, shrinking to just $3.9 billion. Such cuts threaten to cancel about a third of NASA's science projects, including high-profile missions like the Mars Sample Return, the New Horizons mission to the outer solar system and the Juno probe orbiting Jupiter.
Long-running Mars orbiters such as Mars Odyssey and MAVEN, as well as NASA's contribution to the European Rosalind Franklin rover, would also face cancellation. Beyond funding, the proposal also calls for cutting NASA's workforce by about 32 percent, reducing staff from 17,391 to 11,853 employees.
The proposed budget also targets the cancellation of key Artemis program components. However, the budget request is just a proposal and will require approval from Congress to take effect. Moreover, following Musk's exit, the renewed momentum for the moon also comes as the Senate Commerce Committee unveiled a $10 billion reconciliation bill to fund NASA in response to the proposed budget cuts, with much of that planned for the Artemis program. The new Senate proposal recenters toward lunar goals.
China plans to build a permanent lunar base by 2035, focusing on using the moon's ice to support human missions
Khaled Abou Zahr
It is also worth noting that there is a business angle to this, with many of the industry's actors using it as a way to counter SpaceX's dominance of the launch and space markets and carve out a wider distribution of contracts. In 2024, SpaceX accounted for 95 percent of all US orbital launches. Moreover, once its Starship rocket becomes operational, it will be another leap for the US. This would even allow for an acceleration of space launches.
Many wonder why so much focus is on the moon. But it holds importance beyond scientific research. To start with, launching rockets from the moon is generally much cheaper and more efficient in terms of fuel compared to launching from Earth. This is primarily because the moon's gravity is about one-sixth that of Earth's, so rockets need less energy to escape the surface.
Moreover, on Earth, the atmospheric drag requires large amounts of fuel to reach orbit. In comparison, the Moon has no atmosphere, eliminating air resistance. Some estimates suggest that launching from the Moon could reduce fuel requirements by up to 90 percent compared to Earth launches for the same payload.
Another advantage is the moon's unique environment. It offers valuable resources, such as water in the form of ice, which can be used for life support and fuel production, potentially enabling sustainable space missions. Other more adventurous objectives have been stated, such as mining rare materials and developing new industries like lunar tourism and manufacturing.
Water on the moon is mostly found as ice in permanently shadowed regions near the poles, especially within craters that never receive sunlight. This is why China will focus on the moon's south pole. It plans to build a permanent lunar base there by 2035, focusing on using the moon's ice to support human missions and fuel production. Upcoming Chang'e missions will seek resources and test technologies for habitat construction.
China has a focused and state-driven approach to establishing a permanent lunar presence. It seems much clearer than the US space program, especially as public debates roar in America. Yet, despite its budget challenges and political debates, the US is unleashing a vibrant private space sector, which is showing rapid innovation. Despite the technical difficulties and setbacks faced by both nations, the race for the moon is now clearly on. The first to arrive will likely benefit just as much as when the New World was discovered.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
18 hours ago
- Arab News
New study says planting trees alone to offset effects of fossil fuels is not enough
Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can't possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world's largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday. Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by 'breathing.' But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees' collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can't stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there's not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that. And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 'The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that's just not where we're at,' said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal. Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years. For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is 'investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.' To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive. Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study 'elegant.' It 'gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,' said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center. But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters. The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for US policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a 'fantasy,' she said. The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it's tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen. And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water. 'Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water's pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you've got to learn to turn off the taps too.'
Arab News
18 hours ago
- Arab News
Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds
Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can't possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world's largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday. Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by "breathing." But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees' collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can't stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there's not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that. And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 'The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that's just not where we're at,' said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal. Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years. For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is 'investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.' To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive. Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study 'elegant.' It 'gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,' said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center. But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters. The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for US policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a 'fantasy,' she said. The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it's tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen. And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water. 'Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water's pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you've got to learn to turn off the taps too.'
Arab News
a day ago
- Arab News
China's rapid progress in race to the moon
China is making rapid progress with the building of a new space network called the Queqiao constellation. This system is designed to connect Earth and the moon through reliable communications, navigation and observation tools. The goal is to support future lunar missions by placing satellites and spacecraft in key positions around the moon and in space between the Earth and the moon, including areas known as Lagrange points, where gravity allows objects to stay in place more easily. This infrastructure is essential for China's plans to explore, work and even build settlements on the moon in the coming decades. China last month moved a small spacecraft named Tiandu-1 into an orbit that means it loops around Earth once for every three times the moon circles our planet. This special orbit gives it a predictable position relative to the moon over time, which helps in studying the complex pull of the gravity of both Earth and the moon. Another key satellite, Queqiao-2, was launched last year and it is already helping China prepare for future moon landings. And the satellite DRO-B has entered a different kind of orbit and is now traveling through Lagrange points. These stable zones are where space stations or satellite hubs may one day be located. In the US, the Artemis program is NASA's ambitious plan to return astronauts to the moon, establish a sustainable human presence there and use the lunar missions as a steppingstone for future Mars exploration. But Artemis has faced delays and budget uncertainties. The first uncrewed Artemis 1 mission successfully flew around the moon in 2022, but upcoming crewed missions have been pushed back. It has lately been shaped by political uncertainty and doubts over its focus. The moon objective might have regained importance in the US following the falling-out of Trump and Musk Khaled Abou Zahr The moon objective might have regained importance in the past month following the falling-out of US President Donald Trump and SpaceX's Elon Musk. Musk has been a long-time supporter of going straight to Mars and has publicly stated that moon missions are a waste of resources and time. His closeness to Trump had hence cast doubts on the moon projects. Musk's preferred nominee for NASA chief, Jared Isaacman, had also been seen as shifting national space policy in favor of Mars. It is worth noting that Isaacman had great support from the space business community. However, Trump withdrew his nomination and Musk's subsequent exit from the White House has, according to media reports, given the moon mission backers the opportunity to shift NASA's focus firmly back to lunar exploration. In the race for the moon, the outcome is not yet clear. The White House has proposed a cut to NASA's budget for fiscal year 2026, aiming to slash nearly 25 percent of the agency's funding — from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. This would be the largest single-year budget reduction in NASA's history. The most severe cuts would hit NASA's science programs, which are set to lose 47 percent of their funding, shrinking to just $3.9 billion. Such cuts threaten to cancel about a third of NASA's science projects, including high-profile missions like the Mars Sample Return, the New Horizons mission to the outer solar system and the Juno probe orbiting Jupiter. Long-running Mars orbiters such as Mars Odyssey and MAVEN, as well as NASA's contribution to the European Rosalind Franklin rover, would also face cancellation. Beyond funding, the proposal also calls for cutting NASA's workforce by about 32 percent, reducing staff from 17,391 to 11,853 employees. The proposed budget also targets the cancellation of key Artemis program components. However, the budget request is just a proposal and will require approval from Congress to take effect. Moreover, following Musk's exit, the renewed momentum for the moon also comes as the Senate Commerce Committee unveiled a $10 billion reconciliation bill to fund NASA in response to the proposed budget cuts, with much of that planned for the Artemis program. The new Senate proposal recenters toward lunar goals. China plans to build a permanent lunar base by 2035, focusing on using the moon's ice to support human missions Khaled Abou Zahr It is also worth noting that there is a business angle to this, with many of the industry's actors using it as a way to counter SpaceX's dominance of the launch and space markets and carve out a wider distribution of contracts. In 2024, SpaceX accounted for 95 percent of all US orbital launches. Moreover, once its Starship rocket becomes operational, it will be another leap for the US. This would even allow for an acceleration of space launches. Many wonder why so much focus is on the moon. But it holds importance beyond scientific research. To start with, launching rockets from the moon is generally much cheaper and more efficient in terms of fuel compared to launching from Earth. This is primarily because the moon's gravity is about one-sixth that of Earth's, so rockets need less energy to escape the surface. Moreover, on Earth, the atmospheric drag requires large amounts of fuel to reach orbit. In comparison, the Moon has no atmosphere, eliminating air resistance. Some estimates suggest that launching from the Moon could reduce fuel requirements by up to 90 percent compared to Earth launches for the same payload. Another advantage is the moon's unique environment. It offers valuable resources, such as water in the form of ice, which can be used for life support and fuel production, potentially enabling sustainable space missions. Other more adventurous objectives have been stated, such as mining rare materials and developing new industries like lunar tourism and manufacturing. Water on the moon is mostly found as ice in permanently shadowed regions near the poles, especially within craters that never receive sunlight. This is why China will focus on the moon's south pole. It plans to build a permanent lunar base there by 2035, focusing on using the moon's ice to support human missions and fuel production. Upcoming Chang'e missions will seek resources and test technologies for habitat construction. China has a focused and state-driven approach to establishing a permanent lunar presence. It seems much clearer than the US space program, especially as public debates roar in America. Yet, despite its budget challenges and political debates, the US is unleashing a vibrant private space sector, which is showing rapid innovation. Despite the technical difficulties and setbacks faced by both nations, the race for the moon is now clearly on. The first to arrive will likely benefit just as much as when the New World was discovered.
