Chinese point out critical vulnerability of the Artemis mission (which does not exist)

According to a team of Chinese scientists, the single engine system of NASA’s Artemis missions is a critical vulnerability. China’s proposed lunar lander takes a multi-engine approach — as, in fact, does NASA’s Blue Moon MK2 lander.

The design philosophy behind North American lunar architecture relies heavily on a single prime mover high performance, responsible for mission critical phases.

During descent, this engine controls the entire path from lunar orbit to the Moon’s surface. During ascent, the same single point system becomes the only means to bring astronauts back to lunar orbit.

A lack of redundancy It means a failure would eliminate any backup option, a concern highlighted in a peer-reviewed study published in March in the journal Chinese Space Science and Technology, which argues the system “contains some obvious weaknesses.”

In contrast, China’s proposed lunar module for its missions to the Moon adopts an approach with multiple engineso .

The SCMP article refers generically to the “architecture of North American spacecraft”. In the case of Blue Moon MK1the reference to the “single engine” could even make some sense: this ship is described by Blue Origin as a single-launch cargo module, which does not transport astronauts.

However, the Blue Origin “lander” in which the Artemis V astronauts will land on the Moon (and which will then bring them back to lunar orbit) is the Blue Moon MK2which actually uses three BE-7 engines as the main propulsion system.

The Chinese approach

Developed by a team from a national laboratory based in Shanghai, the Chinese module uses four variable thrust engines which together produce more than 30 kilonewtons.

Even if one of the engines fails in full, the remaining three would continue to provide thrust comparable to the main engine of NASA’s Orion spacecraft.

In addition to the main propulsion system, the design includes a additional layer safeguard intended to strengthen mission resilience.

If the main engines become inoperative, six smaller thrusters orbital control can still be activated on the lunar surfaceoffering an alternative route for a quick climb.

This redundancy raises a broader engineering question: If multiple engines offer greater safety than one, why aren’t they universally adopted? the SCMP asks.

The limitation is in the massas incorporating additional motors typically increases the total vehicle weight, reducing efficiency and payload capacity.

The Chinese engineering team responded to this commitment through a structural optimization known as “tank with common bulkhead”which integrates fuel storage more efficiently and reduces excess mass, while still allowing for a multi-engine configuration.

China’s new tank design for its manned deep space vehicle uses a pressure feeding systemin which the fuel and oxidizer are separated by a common walloften referred to as “common fund”, explains .

In previous lunar module designs, the two propellants were stored in completely separate tankswhich added structural weight and took up more space inside the vehicle.

By combining them into a single structure with a shared barrier, the system reduces unnecessary duplication in the tank structure. According to researchers, this change reduces weight by “hundreds of kilos”making the overall design more efficient without sacrificing capacity or performance.

The mass reduction achieved with this design allows you to use four engines instead of a single main unit, increasing redundancy without exceeding launch limitations. Built with composite materials, the tank achieves a weight reduction of more than 20% compared to traditional metal alternatives.

Test results indicate that the four variable thrust engines can be coordinated very preciselykeeping the thrust variation below 100 newtons. This level of precision is crucial to avoid unstable movements that could cause the module to lose control during critical phases of the flight.

The Chinese module approach has an old principle of popular wisdom behind it: it is not wise to put all your eggs in the same… engine.