Chapter 1493 Artemis Alliance

Although Twitter was still somewhat immature in 2010, and its influence and dissemination efficiency were far from what they were later, this tweet was still like a bomb, sparking heated debate in the entire aerospace community.

Representatives of traditional aerospace companies have accused Musk of being "irresponsible", while emerging space startups have mostly adopted an ambiguous attitude.

At the public opinion level, the discussion on whether the United States should join China's space program also quickly split into two major camps.

The Washington Times published a hard-line view almost immediately: "Allowing China to dominate the formulation of space rules would be a strategic disaster. The United States must redouble its investment to ensure that it does not fall behind in the competition for the moon and Mars. This is related to national security for the next 100 years."

In contrast, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary titled "Space Race 2.0: Should the United States Confront or Cooperate?", pointing out that "China is winning space leadership with systematic planning and sustained investment, while the United States is mired in political infighting and budget cuts. Rather than continuing to waste resources in this way, it is better to consider selective cooperation in certain areas to maintain influence."

In fact, it is not difficult to see from the subtle wording that they may not really want to join China's space program. Instead, they are using this opportunity to put pressure on NASA and Congress, hoping to get a piece of the pie from traditional contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

For example, SpaceX, which was the first to criticize, has always been dissatisfied with NASA's decision to choose SLS as the next-generation super-heavy launch vehicle, believing that it is "expensive, complex, and unreliable."

Opponents believe that space flight should be handled by the Americans who support the Stars and Stripes. Commercial space companies like you have never successfully sent humans into space, and you are not qualified to comment on projects like deep space exploration. Instead, you have expressed ambiguous stances at this critical moment of taking sides. There is no guarantee that you have not received black money from the Chinese.

While the debate was in full swing, the China National Space Administration soon released another blockbuster news - a scientific paper on the technology of "lunar soil ceramics", proving that this building material 3D printed with lunar soil not only has excellent radiation protection performance, but can also withstand extreme temperature differences. The paper was published in the journal Nature Materials and has undergone rigorous peer review.

"This is by no means a calculation result that only stays on paper." Wu Qingyuan, the corresponding author of the paper and a materials scientist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said in a video interview, "We have sent fabrics made of the same type of material into space and conducted a one-year performance verification. The next step will be to test its performance in the actual lunar environment."

This news further consolidates China's leading image in the field of space technology.

The news section of Nature magazine commented: "China is already at least 5-7 years ahead in key technologies for building a lunar base. If their Earth-Moon transfer station plan is realized as scheduled, we will face a difficult choice: either accept the new order led by China or bear the risk of being marginalized."

Faced with this situation, the debate in Washington has become more intense.

At a closed-door hearing held in Congress, lawmakers from both sides showed a rare united and tough stance, but there were still serious differences on specific response strategies.

"We can never sit back and let others make the rules for space. We couldn't do that 30 years ago, and we can't do that now," said Richard Shelby from Alabama, waving a translated copy of the Space White Paper. "It clearly states that we need to build a space infrastructure that 'serves all mankind.' That sounds great, but who gets to decide what 'serves all mankind' means?"

Frank Wolf, representing Virginia, stated bluntly that in order to curb the other side's rapid development of space technology, any joint scientific research activities related to NASA between the two countries should be restricted at a legal level, and all NASA facilities should be prohibited from receiving "official visitors" from China.

In essence, it means cutting off all possibilities for space cooperation.

However, Dianne Feinstein from California disagrees: "The question is not whether we should confront China, but whether we have the ability to do so. NASA's budget has actually dropped by 15% in the past decade, while China's space investment has increased by 300%. In addition, our launch cost per unit weight is almost 10-15 times that of China. Under these conditions, a full confrontation is unrealistic."

As the headquarters of many commercial aerospace companies, California naturally represents their interests.

Like Musk's previous remarks, Feinstein's remarks did not focus on cooperation, but on criticizing NASA's current chaos and inefficiency.

The meeting finally reached a compromise: the proposal to join the Huaxia Plan was absolutely unacceptable. On the one hand, Congress would increase funding to accelerate the launch of Curiosity and the development of the next-generation space station. On the other hand, it would continue to promote NASA reforms and further relax the access principles for the commercial sector.

At the same time, the China Space Agency is skillfully using technological diplomacy.

While inviting a delegation from the European Space Agency to visit, it also extended cooperation invitations to countries in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America, promising to provide low-cost satellite launch services and space scientific research cooperation opportunities.

"This is a sophisticated strategy," said John Hampton, professor of international relations at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "China is building a space cooperation network centered on itself, which has both gained international support and divided the Western camp. The challenge facing the United States is not technological but systemic - can we adjust the Cold War mentality and adapt to the rules of space competition in this new era?"

When the European Space Agency delegation arrived in BJ, they received an exceptional reception.

After visiting the China Astronaut Research and Training Center and the newly built space station command and control center, the head of the delegation, Henry Dupont, privately lamented to his colleagues: "Their facilities are five years more advanced than our most daring previous estimates. Refusing to cooperate would mean that Europe would voluntarily withdraw from the first echelon of deep space exploration."

At the last closed-door meeting, the China Space Administration proposed a specific cooperation plan: Europe can provide some transit station modules and scientific payloads. In return, European astronauts will obtain long-term residence rights at the lunar base and share all scientific data.

“This is an offer that is hard to refuse,” Dupont wrote in a classified report sent to ESA headquarters. “Technically feasible, politically sensitive, and strategically perhaps Europe’s only chance to maintain influence in space.”

When the news reached Washington through informal channels, the White House convened a National Security Council meeting overnight. The president set the tone at the beginning of the meeting: "Gentlemen, we face a simple choice: do we let Europe turn to China, or do we offer a more attractive alternative?"

After six hours of intense debate, the meeting reached a consensus: the United States will invite Europe, Japan and Canada to join a new initiative called the "Artemis Alliance", pledging to build a lunar orbital space station "Gateway" by 2028 and achieve manned lunar landing thereafter.

"We are not behind in the formulation of the plan, we just made it public a step later than the Chinese," explained the director of NASA's International Relations Office. "We hope to provide another diverse option for the world."

When facing the reporter's sharp question about whether to require participants to choose between the two options, he gave a meaningful statement:

"At this stage, the Artemis Alliance is not exclusive."

While the US and Europe were wrestling with each other in diplomacy, in June 2010, SpaceX successfully launched its first Falcon 6 rocket at Cape Canaveral, Florida, sending a simulated payload of the same weight as the Dragon spacecraft into low-Earth orbit. At the subsequent press conference, Musk unexpectedly announced: "SpaceX has launched the 'Red Dragon' program, with the goal of sending an unmanned probe to Mars in 9. We will use an improved 'Falcon Heavy' rocket and a specially designed Mars lander."

When asked if this was a response to China's Mars discovery, Musk responded: "Science has no borders. The data collected by Red Dragon will be open to the global scientific community. If China or other countries are willing to share their discoveries, we would welcome it very much."

This multi-dimensional game over space leadership is unfolding around the world, and China seems to have always maintained the strategic initiative. While the United States is still debating whether to confront or cooperate, the "Chang'e 4" probe of the Chinese Space Agency has successfully landed on the far side of the moon, opening the first scientific exploration of the far side of the moon in human history. At the same time, the "Yinghuo-2" Mars probe has also entered the final launch preparation stage and plans to go to Mars in the next window period to form a joint observation network with "Yinghuo-1".

"This is not a sprint, but a marathon," the director of the China National Space Administration stressed at an internal meeting. "Our advantage does not lie in a breakthrough at a certain time or place, but in our persistent strategic determination and systematic planning. The United States may still be ahead in a certain technology, but in the overall space exploration architecture, we are already ahead."

As the space race enters a new phase, a key question hangs in the balance:

In an increasingly multipolar world, who will make the rules that lead to the stars and the sea?

The answer may determine the direction of human civilization in the next hundred years.