Rongdu Principle Decoding Prediction: Who Will Be First to Build a City on the Moon?

Based on the framework of the '16 Principles of the Rongdu Principle' of the Zhuanzhi Think Tank, this is a systematic deduction of the possibilities for the United States, the European Union, China, and Russia to build a permanent city on the Moon. Conclusion: China is most likely to be the first to establish a prototype lunar city, with a time window of approximately 2045–2055; the United States will follow closely; the European Union and Russia will participate more as collaborators or latecomers.

I. Prediction Method: How the 16 Principles of the Rongdu Principle Evaluate a 'Lunar City'

A lunar city is not a single mission, but a self-referential system—it requires long-term maintenance of life, energy, resource cycling, social organization, and self-replication capability. The Rongdu Principle evaluates the stability, evolutionary path, boundary reorganization capacity, and homeostatic strength of each party's system through its 16 principles.

II. Rongdu Field Analysis of the Four Parties

???????? China: Strongest Homeostasis, Clearest Evolutionary Path

• P0 (Meta-Self-Reference): China's space plan is periodic, based on five-year plans, revisable and correctable, with clear long-term goals.
  
• P2 (Conservation): GDP continues to grow, the space budget steadily increases, and it is not affected by election cycles.
  
• P4 (Topological Constraint): The Long March 9, lunar lander, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technologies are advancing according to schedule.
  
• P5 (Fission): The International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) roadmap is clear: 2028 basic type → 2040 improved type → expansion into a city after 2045.
  
• P6 (Feedback): Policy feedback is stable; the Chang'e program and Tiangong space station have verified long-term operational capability.
  
• P8 (Homeostasis): The homeostasis of China's space system is extremely strong, with decades of sustained investment and no major interruption.
  
• P9 (Boundary Reorganization): From research station to city, boundary reorganization can be achieved through modular expansion.
  
• P10 (Dimensional Ascension): From 'crewed lunar landing' to 'permanent residence,' China has already planned a clear transition path.
  
• P12 (Evolutionary Path): Path dependence is clear—Chang'e → crewed lunar landing → ILRS → lunar city.
  
• P14 (Observer Intervention): U.S. Artemis competition actually accelerates China's investment; observer intervention is positive.
  
• P16 (Rongdu Annihilation): Tiangong and Chang'e technologies can be transferred to a lunar city; old Rongdu signals are not wasted.
  

Comprehensive score: 92/100

???????? United States: Strongest Technology, but Fragile Homeostasis

• P0 (Meta-Self-Reference): The Artemis program fluctuates with changes in government; the strategy is revisable, but its direction is unstable.
  
• P2 (Conservation): NASA's budget is affected by congressional politics; commercial space (SpaceX) provides supplementation but with high uncertainty.
  
• P4 (Topological Constraint): SpaceX Starship, SLS, and lunar lander technologies are leading, but progress has been delayed multiple times.
  
• P5 (Fission): If Starship succeeds, it may trigger fission-like acceleration; if it fails, the path is blocked.
  
• P6 (Feedback): Political feedback is unstable and may shift every four years.
  
• P8 (Homeostasis): Homeostasis is weak; the budget and policy are vulnerable to elections and economic crises.
  
• P9 (Boundary Reorganization): The Artemis Base Camp concept exists, but there is no clear roadmap from research station to city.
  
• P10 (Dimensional Ascension): The capacity for technological dimensional ascension is strong, but institutional dimensional ascension lags.
  
• P12 (Evolutionary Path): The path depends on commercial space, but commercial companies' goals are not fully aligned with the government's.
  
• P14 (Observer Intervention): Chinese competition accelerates U.S. investment, but domestic political division offsets part of the momentum.
  
• P16 (Rongdu Annihilation): ISS technology can be transferred, but a capability gap may appear after the ISS is retired.
  

Comprehensive score: 78/100

???????? European Union: Strong Willingness to Cooperate, but a Dispersed Rongdu Field

• P0 (Meta-Self-Reference): ESA strategy is revisable, but disagreements among member states lead to slow decision-making.
  
• P2 (Conservation): The budget is dispersed; space investment as a share of GDP is low; resources are not concentrated.
  
• P4 (Topological Constraint): It depends on U.S. technology (such as Orion and SLS) and lacks autonomous transport capability.
  
• P5 (Fission): It lacks disruptive technological breakthroughs and is more of a follower.
  
• P6 (Feedback): Policy feedback is slow, and the cost of coordination among many countries is high.
  
• P8 (Homeostasis): Homeostasis is moderate, but it is affected by Brexit and economic fluctuations.
  
• P9 (Boundary Reorganization): The Moon Village concept exists, but it lacks funding and a roadmap.
  
• P10 (Dimensional Ascension): The capacity for transition from research to habitation is weak.
  
• P12 (Evolutionary Path): The path depends on international cooperation, and autonomy is low.
  
• P14 (Observer Intervention): U.S.-China competition marginalizes the EU; observer intervention is negative.
  
• P16 (Rongdu Annihilation): Technology transfer capacity is limited.
  

Comprehensive score: 55/100

???????? Russia: Shrinking Rongdu Field, Dependent on Cooperation

• P0 (Meta-Self-Reference): The space strategy is revisable, but constrained by the economy and technology.
  
• P2 (Conservation): The space budget is limited; after the Ukraine conflict, Western sanctions have worsened difficulties.
  
• P4 (Topological Constraint): The Soviet legacy has been largely depleted, and new-generation technology R&D lags.
  
• P5 (Fission): It lacks disruptive technology and relies more on cooperation with China.
  
• P6 (Feedback): Political feedback is unstable, but strongman politics can maintain short-term direction.
  
• P8 (Homeostasis): Homeostasis is weak; economic fluctuations directly affect space activities.
  
• P9 (Boundary Reorganization): It cooperates with China on the ILRS, but its independent capacity to build a city is insufficient.
  
• P10 (Dimensional Ascension): The capacity for transition from research to habitation is limited.
  
• P12 (Evolutionary Path): The path depends on China; autonomy is low.
  
• P14 (Observer Intervention): International isolation makes observer intervention negative.
  
• P16 (Rongdu Annihilation): The transfer efficiency of Soviet technological heritage is low.
  

Comprehensive score: 42/100

III. Conclusion of the Rongdu Principle Prediction

Final Judgment of the Rongdu Principle:
The building of a lunar city is not a sprint of technological competition, but a long march of self-referential systemic homeostasis. China's space system performs best on four core principles—P0 (Meta-Self-Reference), P2 (Conservation), P6 (Feedback), and P8 (Homeostasis)—has the clearest evolutionary path (P12), and has the strongest boundary reorganization capacity (P9). The United States leads in technology but has fragile homeostasis; the European Union and Russia have dispersed or shrinking Rongdu fields.

Therefore, the Rongdu Principle predicts: China is most likely to be the first to establish a prototype lunar city, around 2045–2055. The United States may follow after the 2050s, while the European Union and Russia will participate more as collaborators.

This article is a deduction based on the framework of the '16 Principles of the Rongdu Principle' of the Zhuanzhi Think Tank. It is not a deterministic prophecy. For related Rongdu Principle decoding articles, see the official website of the Zhuanzhi Think Tank.