| I'm a Chinese guy and I don't like this at all. Here's some Chinese perspective: 1. The CNSA is severely underfunded in recent years, to the extent that a considerable amount of space tech graduates went directly into other more "lucrative" fields such as the IT industry. 2. This landing operation was not announced beforehand. This is a bit unusual, when compared to the past operations, e. g. the first manned space flight, where the national news network kept broadcasting the whole event. The CNSA seemed a little unconfident about it. 3. This year is the 100th anniversary for the CCP. 4. Given 1, 2 and 3, and how things work in the PRC, this Mars landing thing is more likely a "present" for the CCP anniversary, intended to strive for more funding. If the operation failed, they'd probably postpone the whole announcement till a more "proper" time, since nobody even know they tried to land the rover. So, the current atmosphere in the CNSA may be a little tense. A failure may make them lose their already-tiny funding, and they did this (at this timing) to please the CCP in order to get more support. I respect all those engineers and scientists who made the marvel achievement, but this is not a pretty scene. And as a Chinese, I don't like it at all. |
What? Here’s CNSA’s official Weibo account announcing yesterday that the rover will land in Utopia Planitia between May 15 and May 19, depending on local landing conditions.[1] A brief Google News search turned up reports from before the landing, e.g. [2] quoting a speech delivered on the 13th by a Chinese Academy of Sciences professor at Beijing Institute of Technology mentioning that the rover will land on the 15th.
[1] https://m.weibo.cn/7480894382/4636823021945182
[2] https://ezone.ulifestyle.com.hk/article/2957353/中國祝融號火星車將於本周...
Edit: And here’s People’s Daily posting the same CNSA announcement yesterday: https://m.weibo.cn/2803301701/4636812058297556 A search of “天问” there turns up regular updates too, pretty conclusively debunking the “nobody even know” claim.
Given that your first piece of evidence isn’t sourced (yet) and I can’t find anything on it (maybe the space tech graduates flocking to IT part is true, but few sectors pay better to begin with, so that’s not a good indication of underfunding; it’s not like NASA pays anywhere close to FAANG), your second piece of evidence is easy to check and doesn’t stand, and your third piece of evidence is circumferential and akin to Kremlinology, it’s hard to take your conclusions seriously.