Space Policy Edition: China’s growing space science ambitions

Interactive Transcript

spk_0 Hello and welcome to the Space Policy Edition of Planetary Radio.

spk_0 I'm Casey Dreyer, the Chief of Space Policy here at the Planetary Society, bringing you

spk_0 another episode of the monthly show that explores the processes and policies that enable space exploration.

spk_0 This month I'm delighted to welcome Maxwell Zhu, who is a graduate student at the Yale

spk_0 Jackson School of Global Affairs, recently completed an internship at the United States Senate,

spk_0 working on the Committee for Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

spk_0 But most importantly and most saliently, was a co-author with me and worked with me on a project

spk_0 this summer to look at the development of China's Space Science Program.

spk_0 The op-ed that we wrote, which was published in payload space newsletter that will be linked to

spk_0 in this show notes, was called Space Science as part of the space race with China.

spk_0 And we did two things. We built out the upcoming future of China's Space Science Program,

spk_0 demonstrating arguably a surprising increase in capability, maturity, and ambition.

spk_0 From China's Space Science's initiatives, and contrasted it against the fiscal year 2026

spk_0 budget proposal for NASA, which proposed a significant 47% reduction in NASA's Space Science activities.

spk_0 And you compare the two and you see a surprising almost one-to-one comparison,

spk_0 where NASA is canceling projects or giving up development to future ambitions. China seems to be

spk_0 building out those very capabilities. This is interesting for an administration and for a large

spk_0 majority of the U.S. Congress that frames the current situation of geopolitical situation between

spk_0 the United States and China as a space race. This was actually in the title of a recent Senate

spk_0 hearing chaired by Ted Cruz in the Senate just a few months ago. So at the United States is in a

spk_0 space race with China. Why are we pulling back from an area where the United States has a clear

spk_0 advantage and history and capability, namely space science? That's missions to the planets,

spk_0 space telescopes, earth observation, monitoring the Sun, the whole gamut. You cannot declare a race

spk_0 to be happening and then just ignore certain parts of space. The universe is larger than the moon

spk_0 and Mars. And if our political leaders want to declare and to win this space race, they declare

spk_0 us to be in. You cannot just ignore the role of space science. That was our argument.

spk_0 Now, as you will hear in this conversation, Maxwell points out China's perception of its role and

spk_0 in its ambitions and planning are very different. And I think that's worth exploring as well.

spk_0 But if nothing else, the growing capability of China represents an exciting and truly ambitious

spk_0 set of science missions that are coming down the pipeline. And putting this all together into a

spk_0 coherent story and narrative was also really valuable. And this type of work that we do here at the

spk_0 Planetary Society that we work with, smart volunteers and future leaders in space policy,

spk_0 this is the type of thing that our members and our donors enable and the types of things that we

spk_0 do that really no one else does. And we talk about that a little bit too. This analysis was novel.

spk_0 There was no one else really thinking about this. And if you support space science and

spk_0 space exploration and scientifically motivated exploration, searching for these big breakthroughs

spk_0 in exploration science, the Planetary Society is working to enable us at all levels.

spk_0 If you are not a member of the Planetary Society, please consider joining us at Planetary.org.

spk_0 So, we put out programs like this, Planetary Radio, great articles, incredible depth of data sets

spk_0 and analysis. We are really driving space policy this year. These are the types of things we

spk_0 get to do as an independent organization. We depend on individuals. We are not funded by large

spk_0 aerospace corporations and we're certainly not funded by government right now and never have been.

spk_0 This enables us to pursue and to focus on what we care about and our shared values

spk_0 in space exploration is curiosity driven science. So, Planetary.org slash join or Planetary.org slash

spk_0 donate if you just want to enable our activities. We cannot survive without our membership.

spk_0 So, our member, thank you so much. You enable this show and others to exist. We again could not do

spk_0 this without you. And now moving into our conversation with me and Maxwell Zoo.

spk_0 Maxwell Zoo, thanks for joining me today. Thanks Casey. Wonderful to be here.

spk_0 So, Maxwell, this whole project kind of was an interesting almost happenstance.

spk_0 You and I kind of did this together, but honestly you did the vast majority of the work

spk_0 to validate this on China's space science growth. Can you tell me how you came to this in terms

spk_0 of space policy in particular and what pulled you into this project beyond me recommending that we

spk_0 do this together? What interest did you about this? I think this has been a topic that's been on

spk_0 a lot of people's minds in the DC world for a while, which is this idea that in order to make the

spk_0 argument that space science is worth it, those of us who are really interested in the science side,

spk_0 you know, we know what the value of science is. We've been making this argument for a long time,

spk_0 but in order to get that kind of consensus, you need to move things, especially on the hill,

spk_0 recognizing that some of the other priorities on the hill that we need to beat China,

spk_0 you know, we need to win the geopolitical competition and figure out how to fold those two worlds

spk_0 together has been a little bit tricky. This direct study, right, kind of came out of us

spk_0 wanting to have some hard facts and data that go beyond just saying China is probably doing something

spk_0 that is closing the gap on space science, right? That probably most of us would guess is true,

spk_0 but no one can really point to any missions or plans or funding or anything that could say,

spk_0 here's exactly how they're doing it and here's exactly what we as the US need to do to make sure

spk_0 that they don't close that gap that we maintain our lead. And so as you know, Casey, we were talking

spk_0 about this while I was working on the hill this summer and all of us just kind of after a lot of

spk_0 discussions realized it'd be really good if we just sat down and just looked at the numbers crunch

spk_0 data and then in all few weeks later it turns out it was actually something that was really useful.

spk_0 It started for me on top of that with this idea that we were looking at this 2026 NASA budget

spk_0 request from the White House that you know, raptures out a third of NASA's projects. And Andrew Jones,

spk_0 whom a lot of listeners may know writes for Space News and other outlets has covered a lot of China's

spk_0 space activities and their space science. I just started to think about some of these things that

spk_0 China seems to be doing. My sample return, maybe this mission out to Jupiter, she would be kind of

spk_0 pairing with the things that the US is saying it won't do. And that's where yeah, this kind of germ

spk_0 of an idea started and this is why I'm so glad you gave some of your time to us to work on this,

spk_0 which is actually tying it to that was relatively, at least not, I don't know, you can tell me if it

spk_0 what was it like, where do you find this information, you know, trying to assemble what is it the

spk_0 kind of Chinese space science program of record. And what did you learn about the China National Space

spk_0 Administration in terms of how they approach space science? One of the biggest takeaways that I had

spk_0 was that China is becoming very, very serious about this in a way that they haven't been in the

spk_0 last, you know, even five, 10 years ago, right? And the way you can tell is that China, which is

spk_0 traditionally very closed off about releasing documents to the public and plans and strategies,

spk_0 has begun releasing them in earnest, right? So one of the things that we discovered was in 2024,

spk_0 they released their first ever medium to long-term development plan. And then they released their

spk_0 first ever their version of their science decadal. This is for them a really big step.

spk_0 They're still not quite at the level of deaf and sophistication and complexity that we typically see

spk_0 from, you know, the ones that NASA releases, that the National Academies that we release. But

spk_0 the fact that they're putting all of this out there really kind of shook me of just, wow, they're

spk_0 very serious, they're committed, they're not going to say something like this and then just forget

spk_0 about it next year. This is their plan of 2050. They're telling the world that they're going to race

spk_0 to close the gap with us over the next two decades. And I don't think they purposely did this because

spk_0 they saw us and the PBR coming down the pipeline that we were going to ask these missions. This

spk_0 does feel like a much more self-inflicted wound. But it does happen to line up so coincidentally

spk_0 that I almost for a second suspect that I was like, is there something ditch-hina plans? Are they

spk_0 doing this just to match us exactly one for one? I don't think so after looking at the data and the

spk_0 timelines. But it is a heck of a coincidence. I'll tell you that. Yeah. And there's a, I'll post

spk_0 on the show notes, the graphic I put together from your research that kind of does this one-to-one

spk_0 comparison of where NASA is proposing to cancel and where China is proposing to put in investments.

spk_0 And it is a striking comparison. It's almost like the negative space, so to speak,

spk_0 of this plan. Maybe we should just highlight a few of what we're talking about here. I mean,

spk_0 I don't put you on the spot. Do you have a list in front of you? I'm happy to talk specific

spk_0 missions, especially because I think part of the reason that it seems like such a coincidence,

spk_0 it's not because the China is necessarily trying to copy the US. But more that both of us recognize

spk_0 these are the big, high profile landmark missions that you want to be doing if you want to be

spk_0 the leader. Both of us recognize it and NASA has always been doing this and now they're falling

spk_0 victim to the PBR and the budget cuts. And China is now realizing this and now they have the

spk_0 resources and they're stepping up. So some of the ones that come to mind, Mars sample return is

spk_0 obviously the most, you know, a one that that's probably biggest in the news if only just because

spk_0 it's the one that's going to come up the soonest. So at the same time that we are canceling

spk_0 Mars sample return on our end, there are Tim 13, which is planning to be launched in 2028. Well,

spk_0 if everything goes right on their end, get to Mars for turn the samples, be the first country

spk_0 to return samples to the Mars in what will be a huge coup. If only because up to now, no other country

spk_0 except perhaps a Soviet Union decades and decades ago has ever had a major space first that was

spk_0 not, you know, the US or in conjunction with the US, right? It's always been America leads in space.

spk_0 And so they pulled that one off. That'll be crazy. Some other big ones, right? They want to be the

spk_0 first country to return samples from the atmosphere of Venus. We are canceling two of our Venus flagship

spk_0 missions, Da Vinci and Veritas that are currently in development. And then of course China has some

spk_0 longer term, I call them almost pipe dream missions. You know, it's hard to take too seriously. Anything

spk_0 that's more than 10 years out, but they want to put a science station on Mars. They want to look

spk_0 for life on Neptune's moons, try and those two things we don't even doing like they're not even on

spk_0 NASA's long-term roadmap. So they're kind of not just taking what we're doing. They're actually,

spk_0 if everything goes right, going to be doing things that we aren't even thinking about right now.

spk_0 Right. I think you emphasized here that there's this gradation or kind of levels of confidence

spk_0 that we're talking about here. I think that was when I was first looking at this before you started

spk_0 working on this problem. That was one of the challenges, right? Because we'd see these reports saying

spk_0 China's considering or proposing some mission to Neptune or mission to Jupiter or Mars Ampli return.

spk_0 And without kind of a more detailed understanding of how the process works, it was hard to say which

spk_0 one is serious and which one is more speculative. What did you find about this process? You mentioned

spk_0 already this concept of like a equivalent of a decadal survey. And this is, you know, I think most

spk_0 people know this, but again, this national academy's process that every 10 years sets the priorities

spk_0 for US space science, you know, for each of NASA's major divisions. You said this isn't quite

spk_0 one to one, but it was similar and that there's an actual somewhat formal process now forming up

spk_0 through conjunction with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and their space program, right?

spk_0 Yes. Yes. That's exactly it. And one of the things we saw in their decadal was that they specifically

spk_0 authorized or announced, I should say, five missions. And when they announced missions, it's usually

spk_0 far less susceptible to internal political pressures that will cause it to, for example, have

spk_0 those funds rescinded, right? Their government does not shut down, you know, as we record this.

spk_0 As, you know, NASA and hundreds of thousands of other federal employees are furloughed and other

spk_0 funds are possibly impounded, that's not going to happen with China. That's not to say they don't

spk_0 have their own political pressures and all that. But when I see China expressly say these are the

spk_0 five science missions that we're going to do by 2035 100 percent at worst it means it might slip a

spk_0 year or two because of development delays, but I'm very convinced that they're going to do this,

spk_0 right? So on top of the, and this is in addition to the high profile missions that they've announced

spk_0 already, like the Tianban planetary science explorations, right? They're a lunar exploration

spk_0 programs. On top of that, they've released another five in their decadal that's specifically focused

spk_0 on space science that will do things like long wave astronomy, exoplanet detection, gravitational waves,

spk_0 right? These are the things that we've been trying to do that we've been trying to lead and these

spk_0 are things that I'm very confident that they're going to do because they don't usually, you know,

spk_0 announce something and then backtrack on it. That's not their style. Well, it's almost like the

spk_0 political back and forth happened behind the scenes before anything that doesn't get announced

spk_0 that you don't see, right? So by the time it gets to that point, it almost seems like that's been

spk_0 kind of worked out. Now this is the commitment and then it moves forward. That's exactly right.

spk_0 Because I also think part of it reflects the difference in how they decide which science

spk_0 missions to fund. Here in the US, we're very bottom-up science driven, right? Congress commissions

spk_0 and national academies to do decadal surveys and then these decadal surveys drive what we as the

spk_0 community, both in the policy community and science community, consider to be the foremost science

spk_0 priorities. And that's, it's almost gospel in a sense, right? If it's not in the decadal, it's not

spk_0 going to be funded most likely, but even if it is, you know, Congress then decides whether

spk_0 or not we should fund it. That's all great. But there are essentially two independent entities

spk_0 with the decadals leading. Whereas in China, things are almost reversed, right? Which is that you get

spk_0 a lot more top-down direction. And the national academies work far more closely, our far more

spk_0 integrated into the decision-making process. And so you get less of just pure science driving

spk_0 which missions are being funded. And a lot more, this is already a considered attempt by all the

spk_0 relevant government decision makers, including their level of the White House, including their

spk_0 level of Congress on what is our national strategy for space science, how this fits all this pieces.

spk_0 And so you're much less likely to have someone on the three years down the line be like,

spk_0 oh, actually, this doesn't lie for our priorities now. Like in my line for science priorities,

spk_0 but we have other priorities because they've already figured this out behind the scenes. And when

spk_0 they release it, they're speaking of a joint voice. Is it too much on a limb to say this is

spk_0 that kind of Chinese model of state-involved priority setting is actually where we see

spk_0 the administration kind of moving with their priorities then telling them science what to do

spk_0 versus this ground-up scientific priorities then embraced by the administration's space science

spk_0 programs? I think we're certainly moving closer to that direction than in the opposite direction.

spk_0 I don't know if I would quite go so far as to say that there's a shift.

spk_0 I would be provocative here, but not just in the sense of, well,

spk_0 excitedly agree with what you're saying, but I think we've always been very state-driven,

spk_0 especially the national academies are a congratulate charter, right? I think we're just much more

spk_0 open and less committed to long-term planning the way our institutional structures are set up.

spk_0 Right? So we're much more open with, hey, this is what the scientists want. Now we're going to

spk_0 mention a former Democrat deliberative process to decide and therefore these priorities will change.

spk_0 Whether or not that's good for space is a different question from whether or not that's a good

spk_0 set up for society. I think certainly there are drawbacks for things like space mission planning

spk_0 to be sure, even if probably on the whole, you know, it's better for, have an open and frank

spk_0 discussion. But certainly I don't think that's the reason we're falling behind in this race,

spk_0 right? Like we got to the moon on that model. That model can work. That's certainly can work.

spk_0 And generally actually does when you think about how some of these Hubble Space Telescope or James

spk_0 Web, I mean, they were tumultuous, but they were multi-decade development projects, right?

spk_0 People made the case for them to succeed over time. And I do think there's an interesting dynamic

spk_0 between open democratic societies and inefficiency that people seem to get frustrated with that are

spk_0 particularly notable in space. And then the solution being, you know, I think you have, in a sense,

spk_0 commercial companies kind of occupy that more command control model where, you know, the efficiency

spk_0 of SpaceX comes from the fact that there's basically one decision maker, which sure you can be very

spk_0 efficient, but it's not democratic in that process, right? There's no expectations for democracy to be

spk_0 efficient, but I think going too far in the other direction people then don't see those results.

spk_0 So there's this, there's a tension between these two things, particularly in space.

spk_0 And I think that's some people see that with China's kind of long term space program to be

spk_0 an advantage in the sense that because there's less democratic input, that there's more of a state

spk_0 influence in this larger geopolitical goals that the consistency is there in a way you don't see

spk_0 on the US side. And I'm not saying that's an advantage. Democratic reason's not to do that.

spk_0 But it seems like maybe we're seeing a version of this express itself through the the science side as well.

spk_0 That's, I'd say that's a fair assessment, though interestingly, I'll say on the word efficiency,

spk_0 right? In this context, we're primarily discussing just the ability to plan in the long term

spk_0 and make decisions. But China, one of the things they haven't released is any funding data. They

spk_0 usually don't for most of the programs, right? And so it is extraordinarily difficult to determine

spk_0 how economically efficient are they being with their programs, right? Does it cost them the same

spk_0 it takes our best scientists and engineers, especially for fixed price contracts.

spk_0 But that's not to discount the fact that they have extraordinary science and engineering talent.

spk_0 It's just they are new to this game for a lot of these things they're doing for the first time.

spk_0 It was certainly more expensive the first time we as a country try to figure out this out.

spk_0 And so I think that's the part that they are able to hide because of the way the process works.

spk_0 And so if there is anything there that is say it is very possible, it turns out they're not

spk_0 very economically efficient at making these missions cost effective. But we just will never know

spk_0 that. Whereas in the US, it's very glaring because you'll have news reports and you'll have IG hearings

spk_0 and you'll have congressional hearings and every time Artemis gets delayed, right? Somebody

spk_0 somewhere is right about it. And so I think that's another difference where the tropics of the Chinese

spk_0 model aren't always apparent because of how they control their information. Certainly. And I know

spk_0 they're struggling to kind of kickstart a version of a commercial space industry for that saying you

spk_0 don't have that same kind of open dynamic society in that sense. And yes, you put there's benefits

spk_0 and weaknesses to this. I want to go back to some of the science missions here because you highlight,

spk_0 I mean, just a few more from this list, you mentioned Chang'a, which is the lunar exploration

spk_0 programs. And that's definitely feeding it. You almost kind of treat those a little separately,

spk_0 right? Because those are clearly aligned with human lunar exploration goals. It seems like

spk_0 right that they're testing technologies related to future human exploration. Tianwen is kind of

spk_0 their planetary exploration missions. And then you said these space science missions. But some of

spk_0 these space science missions, again, they're really branching out. And I think that's the big takeaway

spk_0 that I had from your research in that it's not just these moon and Mars focused priorities anymore.

spk_0 We're talking about, as you said, these space telescope that's going to be comparable to the Roman

spk_0 space telescope coming up, these gravitational wave observatories, a free flying in space that are

spk_0 similar to what Europe and the US, again, US canceled their portion of this or want to cancel

spk_0 of the of Lisa missions to, you know, look for like planets, you know, there's there's a lot of

spk_0 this very ambitious stuff really rolling in. 100%. You know, another mission is their solar polar

spk_0 orbit observatory, which is it's supposed to conduct the first ever frontal imaging of the solar

spk_0 polar region. It's one of those right that if you're not a heliophysicist, just sounds like,

spk_0 oh, okay, cool. We're going to send another satellite to image the sun. Don't we already have

spk_0 tens or dozens of those? And sure, yeah, we do. But all of these represent things that have never

spk_0 been done before and are going to contribute valuable scientific information and demonstrate that

spk_0 China's here, China's a leader in the space science community. And if we aren't careful, then

spk_0 China's going to be the only leader, right? With all these missions, whether it's going to Venus,

spk_0 whether it's going to Mars, you're going to Neptune, you want to study gravitational waves,

spk_0 you know, one of the things that I worry about as I looked at all these different missions is a lot

spk_0 of these are ones that international partners want to collaborate on, right? And are you going to

spk_0 collaborate with the country that has the plan out to 2050 that has the roadmap set and define

spk_0 is going to commit to these funding levels? Or are you going to partner with the country that,

spk_0 yeah, maybe they did some cool things back in the day, but our canceling projects left and right

spk_0 are shutting down their governments are vocally saying that these missions aren't that important,

spk_0 which one are you going to choose? Well, and just abandoning projects that are to commit it.

spk_0 Exactly. And then reliable partner. And for a lot of these missions, you know, the thing that I

spk_0 worry about the most is just perception, because yes, it is bad. It is terrible that we have

spk_0 missions that will be closed and shut down, even though they're still operating. Yes, that's

spk_0 absolutely not what should be happening. We're going to lose that data. And yes, it's true,

spk_0 we're going to pause a lot of amazing projects that should continue to be in development.

spk_0 But, you know, with the first, a lot of these missions are aging. Their data is important,

spk_0 but not, I would say, the flagship missions, you know, that is going to define NASA forever.

spk_0 Missions that are halting development can still be restarted even though there are long-term

spk_0 consequences. But leadership is as much about perception as it is about anything else. And that's

spk_0 not something you can get back, right? If everyone in the world starts thinking of China as a

spk_0 premier partner for space science, no amount of new funding 10 years later can make up that ground

spk_0 that we lose in the next 10 years, even if we suddenly doubled our NASA budget, right? Because

spk_0 they're going to ask what if you just cancel them the next year again, right? And I think that's

spk_0 the true, true, we think 30 years out out to the 2050 mark they have in these plans. And what we

spk_0 really need to do is make sure that other countries don't start suddenly seeing China as the premier

spk_0 destination, as the international hub for space science, because that's exactly their plan. That's

spk_0 what they've literally said in their long-term development plan, which is they want to be where

spk_0 everyone goes. And it's not hard to read between the lines of, right now the US is where everyone

spk_0 goes, in order for China to be there, they have to supplant us. We'll be right back with the rest

spk_0 of our space policy edition of Planetary Radio after this short break. For over 45 years,

spk_0 members of the Planetary Society have teamed up to crowdfund science and technology projects

spk_0 like Light Sale, 100 Earth's Project, PlanetVec, and so many more. The Step Grant program

spk_0 continues that concept, but uses an open call for proposals to cast our net far and wide to find

spk_0 the best projects. The first two rounds of Step Grant winners have done great stuff, ranging

spk_0 all the way from developing a new technique for studying near-earth asteroids to doing a careful

spk_0 comparison of different ways to grow edible plants in space. We're once again going to invite

spk_0 the brightest minds worldwide to discover the next breakthroughs in our third round of grants,

spk_0 and we need your help. This vital scientific research will be made possible with your support.

spk_0 Right now, funding cuts at NASA and the National Science Foundation are Threatening Scientific

spk_0 Research. There's never been a more urgent time to support independent scientific funding.

spk_0 This is real space science and technology funded by you. donations given today will go directly

spk_0 to the next round of Step Grant winners. Please join us in this crucial endeavor by making a gift

spk_0 today at planetary.org slash step. Thank you. What has the kind of overall perception been? I mean,

spk_0 it's so I'd maybe I'll step back and say it. And so in the op-ed you and I wrote, I think we frame

spk_0 this as with this data that in this context of this new narrative, I'd say relatively new narrative

spk_0 of a space race. Maybe just newly the pretext is now the context. It's it's it's you have congressional

spk_0 hearings openly saying this is a new space race with China. You have the acting NASA administrator

spk_0 saying we're not going to lose the space race. And our framing was if you say you're in a space race,

spk_0 you can't just ignore certain parts of space and say that that doesn't count, right? Yep.

spk_0 It's it's like, okay, you know, the cosmos is a lot bigger than the moon and Mars.

spk_0 But here we are, you know, at least as a proposal kind of functionally just ending half of,

spk_0 you know, a huge portion of what we do in space science around the solar system and space telescopes

spk_0 and Earth observation, but saying we're going to win a space race. Do you see this idea resonating

spk_0 at all? Or did you even just see this as this? People not even think about this of space science

spk_0 counting versus human space flight in your experience so far. So I actually start answering that

spk_0 question from the Chinese side, which is if I had the guess, I don't think they see it as a space

spk_0 race, which is I know interesting considering what I just said that in their plans,

spk_0 they are going to close the gap. They're going to race. But I think that is the inevitable conclusion

spk_0 when you read between the lines of what they're saying. And I think it is hard to see a world in which

spk_0 we're not racing against each other on these missions, but from a framing perspective, a mindset

spk_0 perspective, China has historically not really viewed how they compete with us as actually a

spk_0 competition at all. In fact, and then the exact phrasing has lost on me, but I remember talking to

spk_0 some folks, you know, I'm currently a graduate student at the Yale Jackson School Global Ferrors.

spk_0 And last year we had a delegation of Chinese students from Remming University, essentially

spk_0 Al counterpart's come and discuss, you know, all aspects of US China competition of science,

spk_0 technology trade. And one of the things that really struck me was we called it US China competition.

spk_0 Their phrase for it translates much more closely to US competition against China. In other words,

spk_0 they see it as we're just doing our own thing. We really want to be really good at these things.

spk_0 We want to be a world leader. We don't quite understand why the US keeps framing this as a race.

spk_0 When all we're doing is trying to be the best. In some cases, clashing up to the US, which is the best.

spk_0 So I do think that in so far as it is a space race, and I certainly think it is from our perspective,

spk_0 it's not one that's shared across the Pacific, which makes for very interesting discussions with our,

spk_0 you know, Chinese counterparts on these issues, because it means that when we're trying to solve issues,

spk_0 whether in space science or elsewhere, they don't quite see it as, oh, it's a, you win,

spk_0 we lose, we win, you lose, first the plant, the flag. That's something that's always stuck with

spk_0 me because on the US side, you know, to answer the US side of the question, right? Like, absolutely.

spk_0 I think we are on a space race. It's hard to see how we're not. It's hard to see how their version

spk_0 of their 2050 plan doesn't put them in direct competition with us on a lot of these issues.

spk_0 Whether or not a space race is good is, I think, a separate question, but the fact is that

spk_0 everything we're doing, whether in science, whether in space exploration, whether in national

spk_0 security space, commercial space, you name it, our main competitor is China. They're trying to

spk_0 capture the market or have landmark missions or achieve geopolitical first or have zones of control,

spk_0 whether or not they admit that this is what they are doing, it is the inevitable intent.

spk_0 And so here we are, we're in a space race. I think that's really important context. The,

spk_0 it's kind of a one-sided frame. Yeah, that's worth emphasizing. And I mean, I've always been in

spk_0 personally ambivalent about the framing as well. And it's certainly tempting. And I think there's

spk_0 like a short, there can easily be a short-term technical or like a infusion of energy and money

spk_0 if you can get that behind for it. But I think, you know, looking at the longer history, you know,

spk_0 races have an end. And so if you win the race, then, you know, as kind of the class example of a

spk_0 Apollo, it's like, well, okay, well, we want what do we need to do this again? The China perspective

spk_0 is like, we're just trying to build to be the best. And if you want to call it a race fine.

spk_0 But it's, it actually takes a lot of the pressure. And then they're not in as a sense reactive.

spk_0 And I feel like that's the other potential downside with the pure framing of this as a race that

spk_0 we have to be reactive to what they're doing. That they set, but through their action, through China's

spk_0 actions or whatever, it sets the US space policy. And I think that's where, again, the Decadal

spk_0 process is so valuable. And I think even just framing it as like the one-to-one where NASA's cutting

spk_0 China's investing in doesn't mean it's we do it because they're doing it. It's because these

spk_0 are clearly valuable scientific goals. I mean, that's what I think yes and yes, right? That you have

spk_0 a, particularly on the science side, you have a convergence of similar goals. If you all have it,

spk_0 I mean, it's actually validates science as a concept that you have, you know, it's presenting some

spk_0 objective reality among two very different cultures, right? That they say, oh, gravitational waves,

spk_0 you know, search for life, solar physics, these things are really important to understand. So we

spk_0 have mutual, you know, we have joint areas of interest in this. And I think on the pure science

spk_0 front, we are quote unquote winning, right? Because I agree with you that on the pure science front,

spk_0 calling a race does seem counterproductive to the very goals of science and calling a winning

spk_0 does seem to go against the, you know, the way that we should think about science, which is for

spk_0 the benefit of all humankind. But one of the things that is interesting about China's strategy

spk_0 is that even if they achieve everything they want by 2050 and even if we implemented all the

spk_0 budget cuts we did today, to NASA, we would still have more missions than China by 2050 in space

spk_0 science, right? Like sheer number of missions. And part of the reason is China's focusing so much

spk_0 on these high profile missions. If you look at all the missions that they've expressly authorized,

spk_0 they have, I'll say six or seven, I think that I would say are high prestige one. So your China,

spk_0 seven and eight, you have your Tim one, three and four that go to Mars and Jupiter, they have an

spk_0 asteroid redirection mission, their version of the Roman telescope, and then smile, which is one of

spk_0 theirs to study the solar wind and Earth's magnosphere. Okay. So that's like seven. Then you add the five

spk_0 that are in their decadal. I won't go over all of them. We've talked about them many already.

spk_0 And then they have three that are more ambitious missions on their long term roadmap,

spk_0 Venus sample return, a Mars science station, a Neptune mission. Great. Some of these are scheduled

spk_0 for 2039. So it's anyone's guess whether they'll get launched, right? But that's what, that's not even

spk_0 20 missions. That is like their full here are the ones we've absolutely committed to. And what's

spk_0 lacking from a lot of these, right? Are the small scale really scientifically valuable missions

spk_0 that are never going to make a White House press release. So I think of, for example, the Terra Aqua

spk_0 and Oro satellites, right? That are slated to be canceled this year's PBR. Terra does land

spk_0 surfaces, Aqua does water systems, or does atmospheric gases. They were launched decades ago.

spk_0 Everybody from climate mallers to DOD missile defense uses their extraordinarily valuable and

spk_0 continuous data and has used it for decades. They cost about 30 million, right? Which is a tiny

spk_0 fraction of NASA. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Continue operating them. And NASA every year has like for

spk_0 reference a 2.1 billion science budget, at least under the 25 science. And those are not the kind of

spk_0 missions that China is announcing, right? These ones that are like going to be really, really helpful

spk_0 for the scientific community and for our knowledge, but aren't going to make any headlines. And so

spk_0 in terms of the sheer amount of science we're doing, I don't want to make it seem like China is about

spk_0 to overtake us on everything. Everything I've said today has, you know, in this op-ed and that we've

spk_0 talked about that we've looked at is still true, that it would be enormously detrimental to our

spk_0 national interests and the science for us to pull back as China is searching forward. But they are

spk_0 searching for it specifically on very key high profile missions. And they don't seem to be trying to

spk_0 be like the only provider of all the best scientific data. Because right now, NASA still has dozens

spk_0 of missions in the air. They still will, even if the worst comes to pass and this PBR is implemented.

spk_0 And a lot of these China's not trying to replicate. They're not trying to replicate the

spk_0 unsexy missions, the workhorses. They're trying to replicate the ones that are like, oh my god,

spk_0 look what China's doing. Everybody go pay attention to them. So I think from the pure science front,

spk_0 you know, that is something that I still feel if not comfortable, at least not as worried that

spk_0 this is where we'll lose our edge, you know. I think that's where the degree and duration of this,

spk_0 I'd say, scientific crisis comes into play, right? Because whereas you know, the three missions you

spk_0 just mentioned, yeah, they're all launched in the late 90s, they're early 2000s. And there's a lot

spk_0 of projects NASA has that it has a right now over a hundred projects in space sciences. But most

spk_0 of those being inherited from decades of investment, I mean, even, you know, voyage launched in the

spk_0 early 70s. But I mean, those all tail off over the years, right? And I think what's the real

spk_0 challenge now, as you point out, beyond just the, I'd say the inherent tragedy of cutting off missions

spk_0 that are providing good science for no reason, but it's the pipeline. And you know, one of the

spk_0 plots that I put together for our op-ed was looking at based on your missions you found,

spk_0 looking at the number of missions, space science missions China is doing by decade, you know, in the

spk_0 2000s, they did three 2010s, they did 13. And then 2020s with the likely ones have already launched

spk_0 plus the likely ones you identified, they're looking at like 22. So they're more than, you know,

spk_0 it's kind of doubling from the last year. So there's a huge amount of growth. And that's going to

spk_0 be the interesting, like, is there pipeline accelerating? And as our pipeline diminishing, right, at the moment.

spk_0 And I think that's where you start to see a decade down the line, a very different balance in

spk_0 terms of this degree. And I think you're right, this prioritization of, I call them big swing

spk_0 missions, right? You know, something like Mars sample return that are high risk, potentially,

spk_0 you know, very dramaticly high rewards, same with some of their missions for for astrobiology,

spk_0 or gravitational waves. They're going for these very notable going into the record book stuff.

spk_0 But yeah, and then what I call meat and potato science, which is not a bad.

spk_0 So that's a good term. You can be in potato science. I'm using that one, Casey. You know, it's just like

spk_0 your hearty stuff. And it's there's nothing fancy about it, but it keeps you, keeps your data pipelines

spk_0 full. That kind of stuff is less common. But I wonder if you'll see an increase of that over time

spk_0 as China's space science mature. Because again, I think what's what's so interesting to me again that

spk_0 we came out of this was how few people seem to realize this from the work that you did.

spk_0 You and I both been contacted by all sorts of folks asking about this, this op-ed and our data.

spk_0 And it's, you know, it's all stuff that you found publicly online, but was hard, you know,

spk_0 it wasn't easy to put together. And I wonder if they, you know, we had someone ask us, you know,

spk_0 who's the academic expert in this? And I don't think there is one. Just on the space science, right?

spk_0 So no, China's space tends to be dominated in terms of US interests by national security and then

spk_0 human space flight. And the space science thing, I think, is this kind of dark horse here because I

spk_0 wonder if, because it's changing so rapidly, right? Because it's happening so fast that, you know,

spk_0 the lifetime of a single PhD encompasses, you know, roughly a third of all China's space science

spk_0 missions that they've launched. And so I wonder if this is a relatively new awareness coming

spk_0 into play in terms of that this is something that, as you said, an accelerating program that is

spk_0 showing huge amounts of commitment and then growing maturity of capability and ambition.

spk_0 I think that's partially the answer. And I say partially because academia does generally tend to lag,

spk_0 especially on these science and tech issues. It's something that when I was working on the Hill this

spk_0 summer, I noticed the more cutting edge tech was the lower proportion of academics that were likely

spk_0 going to be briefing Congress on these. And part of it is the way that especially tenured faculty

spk_0 are set up in institutions where I like I see this all the time here at Yale, which is we have very

spk_0 few science and tech faculty and all the folks working on science and tech policy tend to be either

spk_0 fellows or people on short term appointments or lecturers because in order to become tenured

spk_0 faculty, which are the cornerstones of academic institutions, right, you have to have a body of

spk_0 work stretching at least a decade if not longer. So it is almost by definition possible to get tenured

spk_0 on China's space science if China's space science wasn't even a thing until five years ago, right,

spk_0 because there's no way you could have built that body of work. And so it is extremely difficult for

spk_0 academia proper to keep up with that kind of thing at the rate that policy changes. So I think

spk_0 that that's one part of it. I think the other part of this puzzle is that there's usually been a

spk_0 disconnect between people who work on science and people who work on, quote, geopolitical or national

spk_0 security issues. So when I was having the opportunity to talk with Bill when I was working on the

spk_0 hill this summer, I had a bit of a cognitive dissonance moment when Bill Nye who had grown up watching

spk_0 talk about science and the porn science came in and we had a discussion around here is the importance

spk_0 of US soft power and how this fits into the larger dynamics of US China geopolitical competition,

spk_0 right. And here was this guy had grown up watching with a bow tie and a smile on his face and cracking

spk_0 jokes talk about these very national security geopolitical topics. And that's always kind of stuck

spk_0 in my mind because there's not a huge amount of overlap between people who are comfortable and

spk_0 have the expertise and the resources and the interest working on natural security or geopolitics

spk_0 or US China competition on the one hand and then science on the other. And I don't think this is

spk_0 something that's unique to space science, right. One of the other projects that I'm actually

spk_0 currently working on here at Yale is the overlap between environment and national security.

spk_0 Specifically, I'm very curious, for example, are there NASA Earth science assets that could be used

spk_0 for golden dome, right. And that requires bringing together a lot of very disparate worlds because

spk_0 I've been trying to talk to people and reach out and the number of people who know and are

spk_0 comfortable and interested in missile defense versus the number of people who are interested in

spk_0 comfortable talking about Earth science assets for NASA. That Venn diagram is also very soon,

spk_0 right. And we're seeing a lot more of these where we need people who can interact and talk at these

spk_0 intersections, but for topics like how the US China compete in space science, how we might use

spk_0 Earth system assets for national security, it's not always obvious how to put all the pieces together

spk_0 in the room, even if like on the whole Congress and executive branch have all these pieces, right.

spk_0 And I think that kind of stops us from getting the full picture at times on these issues.

spk_0 Where do you see this going? I don't know. You're still a graduate student so you haven't yet

spk_0 made a final commitment, but you have a number of interests. Did you see based on the response

spk_0 of this, that this is an idea that can take hold, and this is something worth paying attention to more?

spk_0 Are you talking about specifically China and space science or the larger issue of, let's start with

spk_0 China and space science. So definitely yes, when it comes to China's space science, one of them is

spk_0 practical. It's just convincing folks who maybe science hasn't always been the greatest argument for

spk_0 why to spend US dollars, which is a fair argument, a reasonable discussion to have given everything

spk_0 else we can and should fund as a society. Putting this in the context of a larger, bigger framing

spk_0 of US China competition will just be more politically palatable. It will help build consensus. And

spk_0 as much as I enjoy science and as much as I want us to do cool things in outer space,

spk_0 at the end of the day, we need to pass funding and legislation that allows us to do these things,

spk_0 so from a political perspective, absolutely. But I think I am seeing this broader and broader trend,

spk_0 especially amongst my generation, but certainly across the board, I've just the distinction between

spk_0 pure science technology versus non-science and tech things, shall we say? You can

spk_0 group this by congressional committees if you want. The overlap between things that the

spk_0 science committee covers versus armed services and foreign relations covers, it's definitely getting

spk_0 blurrier, right? With things like AI, things like quantum, things like space, where yes, in the past,

spk_0 has kind of been always true, but as the pace of science, technology, innovation increases, as

spk_0 the requirement for technical knowledge increases, as the world becomes a slightly crazier place than

spk_0 it definitely was maybe five, 10 years ago, all these distinctions are becoming more and more blurry,

spk_0 and it's increasingly vital that we're going to make good decisions. You need people who are able

spk_0 to work at these margins, at these intersections and bring people from these disparate fields and

spk_0 make, you know, do the kind of research that we did, because it's not like it's particularly,

spk_0 I don't think what we did on this research project was any harder than say a physics problem,

spk_0 right? Or a pure policy problem, it was just the matter of putting the pieces from those two worlds

spk_0 together. Right, it was all out there, it just needed the specialty in the time, and I think the

spk_0 prioritization to even acknowledge it. And that's why I was getting so fascinated just to see

spk_0 again that there's lots of low-hanging fruit out there, and also just, as you said, there's a

spk_0 this time series issue of just, if things are happening fast, sometimes they don't bubble up into

spk_0 these compartmentalized approaches, but it's like a whole separate, but interesting discussion about

spk_0 as they're more and more blur between all these previously, relatively compartmentalized policy

spk_0 issues that are starting to run into some internal structural challenges, but we'll leave that for

spk_0 another podcast. Yeah, and I think the last thing, right, I'll say on this is China gets to make

spk_0 moves too, right? This isn't their final version. They made all this before, we put out our PBR,

spk_0 before our government shutting down. It wouldn't be the craziest thing in the world if they saw this and

spk_0 thought, hey, we have an opening, let's press harder on the gas pedal. There's absolutely no reason

spk_0 for them to just sit by and watch as the world unfolds around them, any more than there's any reason

spk_0 for us to do that. And so I would be shocked if we have further developments in this over the next

spk_0 six months, over the next year or the next five years, because they are seeing the same thing as we

spk_0 are in their independent actor. And if they're smart and they want to achieve their 2050 goals,

spk_0 they'll see this as opportunity and act accordingly. Very good point, Maxwell. Where can people

spk_0 follow you on this issue? You have a new sub stack, I believe. Yes, I do. My new sub stack is called

spk_0 Galileo 5. Galileo 5 where 5 is spelled like the Roman numeral V. For those of you who are Westwing

spk_0 fans, it comes from the episode called Galileo 5 where President Barlett goes on and on and waxes

spk_0 poetic about how awesome space exploration is with a mission called Galileo 5. You can also just go

spk_0 directly to the URL, which is Maxwell zoo dot sub stack dot com. That's Maxwell Z H U dot sub stack dot

spk_0 com. I'm writing a lot more about anything related to civil space policy, especially if that's

spk_0 something that Congress could legislate on. So there's further information here around what China

spk_0 space science strategy is. There's probably going to be stuff around whether there's any first mover

spk_0 advantage to look orange points that I'm working on with some NASA astrophysicist on the project I

spk_0 mentioned earlier on whether NASA missions could be used for golden dome, things like that. Just I

spk_0 am absolutely fascinated with kind of space science space exploration with the US government should be

spk_0 doing. So if you're interested, take a look. I'm a subscriber. I recommend. You might have been one

spk_0 of the very first ones. Thank you very much. Absolutely. We'll have this link on the show notes. Maxwell,

spk_0 thank you so much for coming on and talking about it. It was great working with you on this

spk_0 project. And I'm very excited to see more of the work that you're doing here in the coming

spk_0 months and years. Thank you so much, Casey. Always a pleasure.

spk_0 We've reached the end of this month's episode of the Space Policy Edition of Planetary Radio.

spk_0 But we will be back next month with more discussions on the politics and philosophies and ideas

spk_0 that power space science and exploration. Help others in the meantime learn more about space policy

spk_0 and the Planetary Society by leaving a review and rating this show on platforms like Apple

spk_0 Podcasts or Spotify or wherever you listen to this show. Your input and interactions really help us

spk_0 be discovered by other curious minds and that will help them find their place in space through

spk_0 Planetary Radio. You can also send us, including me, your thoughts and questions at PlanetaryRadio,

spk_0 at Planetary.org or if you're a Planetary Society member and I hope you are, leave me a comment

spk_0 in the Planetary Radio space in our online member community. Mark Hilverda and Ray Paleta are

spk_0 our associate producers of the show. Andrew Lucas is our audio editor. Me, Casey Dreyer and

spk_0 Merck Boyen, my colleague, composed and performed our Space Policy Edition theme. The Space Policy

spk_0 Edition is a production of the Planetary Society, an independent non-profit space outreach

spk_0 organization based in Pasadena, California. We are membership based and anybody even you can

spk_0 become a member, they start at just $4 a month, that's nothing these days. Find out more at

spk_0 Planetary.org slash join. Until next month, add Astro.

Space Policy Edition: China’s growing space science ambitions

Interactive Transcript

Topics Covered

Related Episodes

Reimagining Midlife: My 2x20 Project™ Update & the Power of Experiments

Stranger Things Was REAL: Inside the Montauk Project

the magician who invented the modern world: john dee and the lost birth of science

Essentials: Erasing Fears & Traumas Using Modern Neuroscience

Share Episode