China has signed and ratified the Outer Space Treaty, but not the Moon Treaty, same as the U.S.

If they are serious about 15 years to place a taikanaut’s feet on the moon, they will be getting busy quickly. Lets see if they do Apollo on steroids or something less.
Quick question for any lawyers out there. What are the chances these taikanauts will lay claim to the moon once they get there?

Anon, still see no evidence of a manned crewed lunar mission?

— Donald

You’re right that it isn’t clear, but there’s something (not specific) about the Shuttle workforce, so I’d have to guess that there’s something Shuttle-derived in the mix there. I can’t really tell from the sentence where that plural “s” applies, though. From the Clinton web site:

Pursue an Ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program. Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.

source: http://www.spacefoundation.org/TheSpaceReport07.pdf

There’s no doubt that politicians representing NASA field centers are trying to play the China human lunar card. But they’ve been playing that card for years now, and the Congress at large and the White House have yet to buy into it. That’s not so say that it couldn’t happen in the future. But unlike Sputnik, Gagarin, and the Soviets, there’s no broad consensus (or “traction”) that there is a Chinese human lunar threat and/or that responding to that threat (real or imagined) is a national priority, at least not yet.

“It should heat up if China Chang’e I lunar mission is successful while LRO is still waiting to be launched.”

Following hard on the heels of Japan’s Kaguya and in the wake of Japan’s decision to pursue military reconnaissance satellites — and launching shortly before India’s Chandrayaan — China and Chang’e and are arguably in a regional race with Japan and India, and Kaguya and Chandrayaan, to demonstrate technical prowess in space, not in a global race with the U.S. to put humans on the Moon.

Not counting the Kaguya and SMART-1 missions already launched and finished, there are no less than eight lunar orbiter, lander and rover missions from seven different nations planned or proposed for launch between now and 2013. To the extent there is a robotic race to the Moon, it’s a multipolar race, not a bipolar race between the U.S. and China.

“Let’s face it, fear got us to the moon the first time. No reason it won’t work the second time around.”

No doubt fear spurred Apollo. But the fear of a highly capable, nuclear-tipped, Soviet-missile Armageddon that drove Apollo is very different from fears about China today, which are much less apocalyptic, immediate, and militarily oriented. That’s not to say that China could not pose a serious economic, environmental, national security, or even direct military challenge in the decades ahead. But the threat is different from the one posed by the Soviets, which probably means that the U.S. means to meeting the Chinese threat will be different from Apollo (and ICBMs, SLBMs, military buildup in Western Europe, etc.).

“And the Chinese will not fold and wlak away like the Russians did when we beat them in the 1960’s, so we will need to keep a presence there this time around.”

It’s hard to talk about China folding up and walking away from a human lunar activity when China has yet to commit to a human lunar program in writing or speech and when there is no physical evidence that China is pursuing one.

FWIW…

The problem is that’s pretty much the plan already. In NASA’s five-year FY08 budget plan, Ares I/Orion spending already rises from about $2.9 billion in FY10 (before Shuttle retirement) to $4.6 billion in FY11 (after Shuttle retirement), a $1.7 billion or almost 60 percent increase. Although more dollars could be thrown at Ares I/Orion from the $3 billion that’s planned for the Ares V/EDS/LSAM development start in FY11, there’s a limit to how much more a program already experiencing a 60 percent budget increase can be accelerated before the dollars stop having an effect. This may be especially true for Ares I/Orion, where the new J2-X engine will be the critical path/long tent pole/pacing item and may be incapable of being accelerated much earlier than late 2013/early 2014, no matter how many dollars are thrown at it.

Personally, I don’t think the gap is as big a deal for the NASA workforce or American prestige as Griffin and others think, for a variety of reasons. But if reducing the gap their top priority, why they picked and have stuck to a path with a schedule that proved so susceptible to minor budget peturbations and that is so difficult to buy back, still escapes me.

“Candidate Clinton’s space position, as clarified by the New York Times subsequent to the presentation of her policy statement, will accelerate Orion/Ares I development while curtailing Ares V and the Moon effort.”

We actually don’t know from the NYT excerpt that Clinton & Co. would stay with Ares I/Orion, only that they would accelerate “next generation launch” (which may or may not be something more advanced than Shuttle-derived vehicles) and “crew exploration vehicles” (plural, not singular). While it is clear from the NYT article that the human lunar return effort and its hardware (whether Ares V/EDS/LSAM or something else) will be deferred under Clinton, we really have no indication their preferred solution (if any) for ISS transport.

My personal hope is that the language is indicative that Clinton & Co. will look for options besides Ares I/Orion. Even setting aside the enormous and duplicative expense of Ares I, the Ares I/Orion combination is technically compromised from a flight safety standpoint and, moreover, the costs of developing and operating Ares I’s systems makes little sense if those systems are not going to be soon (or ever) used on Ares V.

“Why antagonize the battleground state of Florida”

Exactly. That’s the reason why Clinton & Co.’s langauge has been imprecise on the question of what replaces Shuttle. Even if they have enough information to make a decision now (unlikely) and have made a decision (very unlikely), they have no incentive to reveal that hand until after the election.

FWIW…