China's First Lunar Lander To Launch Today; Manned Mission Planned By 2030 137
c0lo writes "A Chinese Long March rocket is scheduled to blast off to the Moon on Sunday evening at about 6pm UTC carrying a small robotic rover that will touch down on to the lunar surface in about two weeks' time – the first soft landing on the Earth's only natural satellite since 1976. China has been methodically and patiently building up the key elements needed for an advanced space programme — from launchers to manned missions in Earth orbit to unmanned planetary craft — and it is investing heavily. After only 10 years since it independently sent its first astronaut into space, China is forging ahead with a bold three-step programme beginning with the robotic exploration of possible landing sites for the first Chinese astronauts to set foot on lunar soil between 2025 and 2030. Prof Ouyang Ziyuan of the department of lunar and deep space exploration and an adviser to the mission commented to the BBC on the scale of Chinese thinking about the Moon. He said the forthcoming venture would land in an ancient crater 400km wide called Sinus Iridum, thought to be relatively flat and clear of rocks, and explore its geology. China.org.cn promised live coverage of the event."
Beijing: we'll see your lunar launch (Score:1)
Because #Progress.
Re: (Score:1)
I predict there will be dead Chinese Astronauts on the moon.
50% chance they will become stranded and die and 50% change they just crash and die.
I think I remember reading those were pretty much our odds too.
Re:Beijing: we'll see your lunar launch (Score:5, Funny)
I predict there will be dead Chinese Astronauts on the moon.
That permanent presence will back their territorial claim over the entire satellite, followed by a declared "defensive identification zone".
Re: (Score:2)
Introducing: Mooncare ! (Score:1)
But will they make you buy insurance in order to visit?
With Mooncare coverage (c), not only you get the necessary coverage to visit the moon, we will make sure that your tax dollars be funded into the development of a better Mooncare (c) website !
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"The american government has repeatedly shown they have no real interest in space exploration "
How do you explain all the unmanned probes flying around and even flying out of the solar system? Or the various Mars landers which have been instrumental in testing the various technologies and capabilities needed for further space exploration? Or the X-37B reusable space plane that has been flying missions into orbit for the last 4+ years? Or the manned version of the X-37B currently being tested? Looks like s
Re: (Score:2)
Pow! Zoom! Straight to the moon! [veryvintagevegas.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Beijing: we'll see your lunar launch (Score:1)
You mean like when we said "We came in peace for all mankind"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Technology has improved greatly. This doesn't mean it will be trivial to do, but we got people on the moon with computers far less powerful than an embedded Bluetooth controller.
With the advancement of unmanned space probes, the path to get men back on the moon is made far easier. Things like a blown oxygen tank can be just a blip on a sensor, not a major funeral or cause to build a monument. Of course, this doesn't downplay the effort it takes to get stuff to the moon, but mistakes which would be in the
Re:2030? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll be surprised if there aren't tourists on the moon long before 2030. SpaceX's next-gen "man-rated" Dragon capsule will be flying in a couple of years, and the gap between that and a lunar landing/return capability is pretty well understood territory. It's not quite "off the shelf" yet, but there are plenty of folks working on the necessary technology. And if, in the meantime, they get their Grasshopper RLV into service, that will slash the cost dramatically.
Hell, Elon expects to have people on Mars befo
Re:Beijing: we'll see your lunar launch (Score:4, Interesting)
And it may be that any new lunar lander should use a similarly capable computer. If the urge to use newer hardware takes over, it won't be long before some asshole suggests the next lander be controlled by software written in Java running on Android. Ask the astronauts about the laptops they were given to control ISS systems. But only if you're prepared for an earful.
Add to that the fact that modern low voltage, tiny feature size hardware is much more susceptible to the affects of cosmic rays than the old gear. Once you leave the Van Allen belts, you're getting pelted with a lot more crap, and it's much easier to flip a bit in modern RAM than it was in the older stuff. If you want radiation-hardened chips, suddenly you're talking about 4 or 5 generations back, if you're lucky. Didn't Intel say they were going to stop making their radiation-hardened gear at all? So now you have to provide external shielding, and preferably multiple redundant tell-me-three-times systems, so if one of them loses its feeble mind during operations, the other two can agree to ignore it and still get you landed in one piece.
The problem remains nontrivial and expensive simply because nobody has been doing it much. There are no economies of scale beyond LEO and there are only any economies of scale to LEO now because of SpaceX. It won't be easy, for China or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
there are only any economies of scale to LEO now because of NASA - FTFY
SpaceX has made what, five commercial flights? Using technologies and equipment developed by NASA and Roscosmos at that. SpaceX is doing interesting things, but let's not get ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA hasn't built a rocket in decades. Let's not get even more ridiculous. SpaceX is using manufacturing techniques NASA has never used. Nor is Roscosmos using them. That's where the economies of scale come from, and they are unique to SpaceX. Neither ULA partner does them either. Judging by the progress of the Chinese space program, they're not using them to build Long March rockets either.
The engineering may be NASA-derived, but the manufacturing is all SpaceX.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Space race anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for them. I wish them the best of luck.
I kind of hope this kicks off another space race. That would be so much better then a battleship arms race (see WWI) or a nuclear arms race (see cold war).
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
the space race was really about making ICBMs. sputnik intentionally looks like the nose cone of a missile.
why do you think the whole thing was supported by the DoD?
Re:Space race anybody? (Score:5, Informative)
the space race was really about making ICBMs. sputnik intentionally looks like the nose cone of a missile.
It's worth noting that the nose cone of orbital-capable rockets would look like nose cones of ICBM missiles anyway, because they're solving the same problem - handling high atmospheric loading on the front of a rocket.
And if you're already making ICBM missiles (the R-7 being the first such and the basis for the Sputnik rocket), it makes sense to base an early orbital vehicle off that frame as well for economies of scale (US private industry did the same with the Atlas, Titan, and Delta series).
So Sputnik probably would have looked like an ICBM even if that wasn't the actual intent of the Soviet program.
Re: (Score:2)
Launch and reentry are aerodynamically different problems.
The ICBM and the orbital rocket both have to launch. If that fails, one doesn't get to a reentry problem. And a reentering warhead can take both substantial heating and deceleration.
Re: (Score:2)
And it was launched with a rocket that had been developed as an ICBM.
Oddly enough, Redstone (suborbital Mercury flights) was an IRBM, Atlas (orbital Mercury flights) was an ICBM, and Titan (Gemini launches) was an ICBM.
Re:Space race anybody? (Score:4, Informative)
Sputnik was spherical. Cones, surprisingly, are conical.
Stop making stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Since there are IIRC four of them you could equally claim it "roughly defines" a square-based pyramid.
And unless you're close you don't even see the spindly things, just the body. So no, it doesn't look like one at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A race when an opponent has reached the finish line in friggin 1969?
Well, apparently a man on the moon is the second technological feat that is impossible today but achievable in the 70.
The first one is packaging things in a way that can be opened easily. I could easily open a pack of c90 tapes one handed as a 10 years old, I couldn't do the same with CDRs at 25 using both hands, i can't unpack an SD card without some tool now. I guess lasers will be needed in 10 years.
You Misunderstand (Score:5, Insightful)
A race when an opponent has reached the finish line in friggin 1969?
The equation is different now. There are resources to be mined on the moon. It's not a matter of if we will exploit the moon's natural resources, it's when. China already holds the cards on many basic materials of technology, they would like to hold more.
Re: (Score:1)
It seems inevitable that there are resources to be mined. But the problem is setting up the facilities to mine it in the first place. Then there's shipping. Doesn't make much sense to send a million dollars worth of material back if shipping will cost 10 million dollars. So we're pretty far away from that, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
gold isn't formed anywhere, except at the center of the sun. and in my basement from a supply of lead bricks.
Re: (Score:3)
The Sun is not able to produce gold. If I remember correctly, our star is not able to create any matter above the atomic number of iron. All the gold present in our solar system is thought to have come from supernova remnants that occured before the formation.
What IS the energy requirement of your basement anyway? Does the gold your alchemical process creates covers your electricity bill? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Idk... In California an ounce of gold would buy 50MJ of electricity, which sounds like a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Only very large stars burn up as far as Iron. You're right that elements heavier than Iron require supernovae to be synthesized. The reaction that makes Iron is endothermic.
The sun, being a somewhat low mass star by comparison to the giants that make Iron, makes almost all of its energy from the proton-proton chain (e.g. Hydrogen-Helium) and I think about 1% is the CNO (Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen) cycle. The sun will get hotter later on, I'm not sure what elements it will get up to before it turns into a planet
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't make much sense to send a million dollars worth of material back if shipping will cost 10 million dollars.
Not now . Who knows about the future.
It may not be "profitable" now, but the ground work for the mining technology has to be done sometime.
And as some commenters have suggested, China may very well declare some large slice of moon to be Chinese territory by having a human plant a flag...
Re: (Score:2)
If it's as simple as planting a flag the US did that.
I think the first country to establish a permanent settlement on the moon would have more claim over that territory.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the UN had put a ban on any country claiming the moon as their territory.
And why is that supposed to be relevant? They're a powerless about stuff in space, unless someone with actual relevant power decides to enforce their rules.
I think the first country to establish a permanent settlement on the moon would have more claim over that territory.
Quite true. Possession is nine tenths of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the first country to establish a permanent settlement on the moon would have more claim over that territory.
And what exactly do you think China is doing developing manned moon mission technology?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About 2.2 km/s to put it into an orbit that will reach Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to go back to Earth. A million dollars worth of fuel on Earth is probably worth 100 million dollars in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Water is the resource of value on the moon. Not because it's water, per se, but because it's water which is not in Earth's gravity well. Water is propellant, and there will be a big market for propellant up around LEO and further out, because it will be much cheaper to get it from the moon than from Earth, in time. So for me, the premise is wrong - the materials on the moon, when mined, are not bound for Earth, by and large. That would be like smuggling cocaine into Peru. ;)
Now you could be right about it b
Re: (Score:2)
A race when an opponent has reached the finish line in friggin 1969?
Well, apparently a man on the moon is the second technological feat that is impossible today but achievable in the 70.
That second part is important. By doing so, China demonstrates that it can do one of the greatest feats that mankind has done to this point. If at the time, the US is incapable of duplicating that feat, then that's a bit of a propaganda advantage in China's favor.
The first one is packaging things in a way that can be opened easily. I could easily open a pack of c90 tapes one handed as a 10 years old, I couldn't do the same with CDRs at 25 using both hands, i can't unpack an SD card without some tool now. I guess lasers will be needed in 10 years.
Then you don't get the point of packaging. It does more things than merely protect from physical damage and deliver a product. It markets the product and it protects the product from theft. Merely, throwing a little electrostatic shrinkwrap on such
Re: (Score:3)
The first one is packaging things in a way that can be opened easily.
There is a handy tool designed specifically for opening such packaging. Unfortunately, it comes in its own blister pack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you believe that they intend to stop at the Moon?
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually it will. Space is the ultimate high ground, and the nation which controls space can just chunk pieces of metal from a satellite for nuclear-blast effectiveness. No need for nuclear weaponry when throwing rocks or metal rods, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" style works just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually it will. Space is the ultimate high ground, and the nation which controls space can just chunk pieces of metal from a satellite for nuclear-blast effectiveness. No need for nuclear weaponry when throwing rocks or metal rods, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" style works just as well.
I don't understand this point. can you elaborate?
Re: (Score:2)
Your post deserves a much better answer than what you have received thus far. Unfortunately I am not a physicist and my communication skills are terrible, but I will give it a try. Hopefully someone else will come along and give a much better explanation.
As I understand it, destructive power comes from energy impacted by the projectile. One way to achieve that energy is to have the projectile explode (bombs, artillery shells, nuclear explosions) or just using the kinetic energy (bullets). It is the later ty
Re: (Score:2)
Your post deserves a much better answer than what you have received thus far. Unfortunately I am not a physicist and my communication skills are terrible, but I will give it a try. Hopefully someone else will come along and give a much better explanation.
As I understand it, destructive power comes from energy impacted by the projectile. One way to achieve that energy is to have the projectile explode (bombs, artillery shells, nuclear explosions) or just using the kinetic energy (bullets). It is the later type that is being pointed to.
The damage of the kinetic projectile is (I think) based on the mass of the projectile and the amount of force used to propel it forth. Essentially the more dense the projectile and the more force is used to launch it, the more energy it will transfer on impact. Given large enough values, it is possible that a pure kinetic projectile can transfer more energy than a nuclear explosion.
The premise of the post is the assumption that a projectile (rocks and rods) simply thrown from a satelite towards the surface of the Earth, has enough potential energy to achieve this level of destruction.
Or to put it another way. Imagine you are on a train. The faster the train goes, the more energy it'll have if it were to impact. A train going 5 miles a hour might put a dent in a car, but it wouldn't be a disaster. A bullet train moving at 300 miles a hour suddenly hitting a inexplicably appearing car will be on international news. Now, Imagine a titanium rod 10 feet thick being accelerated to escape velocity from the moon. It'll experience minimal slowdown to the almost non-existent lunar atmosphere. As
Re: (Score:2)
The faster it moves, the bigger the amount of potential energy it'll have.
I believe the gravitational potential energy is what is being changed into kinetic energy. As it gets closer to the Earth it has less potential energy. I think this is why gravity can be thought of as negative energy.
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree that's probably what the other poster was getting at. Flinging stuff down to Earth is problematic though on account of the atmosphere. Something going at a few km per second is going to slow down, hard, when hitting the atmosphere. It's probably going to hit turbulent flows of air that make its course/orientation much less certain as well.
If you make it real big, like the Chicxulub impactor, it's less of a problem. :)
I think asteroids and comets show that in the end, kinetic definitely rules
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For $DIETY's sake why ?
All the last one did was piss away billions of dollars without returning much of anything. And no, before the fanbois bring it up, it didn't produce anything much in the way of spin-off technologies despite what decades of NASA propoganda would have you believe. (NASA piggybacked on the DoD right down the line - and weather and commsats would have happened without Mercury/Gemini/Apollo.) If you want to expand into space, pre
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that they did a lot of great basic science. The type of science for knowledge sakes, which tends to lead to commercial discovers 10 to 20 years later. And yeah, it is hard to qualify. And yeah, when can get into contrafactual arguments that it would have been better to do different research.
But if we are going to get into a pissing contest with China, I would much rather that it be a space race then a arms race.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you want me to accept your argument on faith.
No, I'm not getting into a contrafactual argument with you because you haven't introduced any facts.
Re: (Score:3)
For $DIETY's sake why ?
Because the last space race has inspired a generation of kids to pursue careers in engineering and science.
Who are the role models of kids today? Lady Gaga?
Re: (Score:2)
A generation of kids? You're got to be kidding - because I'm part of that generation. And there's precisely no evidence that any number of additional children went into science and engineering beyond the proportion that would have anyway.
And if you think Lady Gaga is all there is to the world absent a space program, you're beyond deluded.
Re: (Score:3)
What the last one did was raise several generations of kids who dreamed of being scientists and astronauts, not bankers and MBAs. The effect that it had on the progress of human civilization as a whole is hard to quantify, but it is immense.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the theory. Sadly, there is not on single shred of evidence that the kids so inspired wouldn't have gone on to become scientists and astronauts without the space program. None. Zip. Nada.
If it's impossible to quantify - how can you state with certaint
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope not. The 1960s space race was detrimental to long-term manned space travel. Before Sputnik, in the mid-1950s the U.S. plan for getting people into space was with a hypersonic plane [wikipedia.org] which used both aerodynamic lifting surfaces while in the atmosphere, and a rocket for lift when the air got too thin. Several of the X-15 pilots flew high enough to earn the USAF's astronaut wings (50 miles), and two flew high enough to enter the international definitio
Re: (Score:3)
I hope not. The 1960s space race was detrimental to long-term manned space travel.
Detrimental to long-term?! Even if one were to agree with your view that the space race went in the wrong direction, it still developed technologies that would be essential to any space activity.
You want human activity in space? That means you need stuff to be launched up there as cheaply as possible. Show me a hypersonic plane design for cargo delivery and tell me how much it could carry per launch. I bet you that it is less than 100 metric tons to Low Earth Orbit. Because only Saturn V (for USA) and Energ
Re:Space race anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because in space, no weapons are allowed
that happened shortly after we scared the hell out of ourselves by detonating a 1.4 megaton nuke in space [wikipedia.org] which created a hugeass radiation belt [wikipedia.org] which damages satellites. [wikipedia.org]
I am afraid tech lines are being narrowed... (Score:2)
The [dividing] line between us and those other nations is surely being narrowed. After the Chinese shot down a satellite [youtube.com] in 2007, I knew it was just a matter of time.
No wonder they are now challenging us in the east [slashdot.org]. To make matters worse, they own most of our debt [washingtonpost.com]
If nothing is done, we'll be a nation of no consequence in a few decades.
Re: (Score:1)
And any new US innovations are routinely stolen by Chinese Gov't hackers and given to Chinese Companies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stolen? No, they are just given away, after all since they are produced abroad there is no need to steal anything, we give them the blueprints and even send some engineers to set up production.......
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. If the chinese are going to the moon you can expect them to stay there permanently, claim ownership, and begin sending back resources (rare-earth metals necessary for many manufactured goods).
Re: (Score:2)
begin sending back resources
What resources? The only natural "resource" the Moon has is being most of the way out of the Earth's gravity well. If there had been anything of value (once the cost of getting to it and shipping it back had been subtracted) there would be permanent Moon bases already ... maybe even ones that are considering declaring independence from their over-taxing overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to ship things down to Earth from Luna for them to have value. There is evidence of water ice on the Moon. Add energy, you turn that into H2/O2 rocket fuel. near the top of the gravity well.
Large interplanetary spacecraft would be much ea
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion? Last I heard, that power generation method has still failed to produce more power than is being put in. It has been worked on since 1950s and while progress has been made, it still doesn't work as well as we need. It is used as a poster child of empty promises. How long has it been 6 years in the future perpetually?
Re: (Score:2)
The post was made to point out the reasons to go back to the moon (Which it does), but the depressive thing is that this was written back in 2005. Bush's "new" Vision for Space Exploration was nothing but yet another bit of polical pretension of doing something other than rearanging deck chairs on the Titanic. The whole thing was cancelled as soon as Obama got into office.
Constellation Program [wikipedia.org]
Now Obama got his own version. When next president is elected that will be scrapped because another version will be
Re: (Score:2)
So while China is putting robots on the moon, the US has had robots on Mars for some time now. China declared an air defense zone, the US military sent B52s over to pointedly ignore it. (The Japanese and South Korean militaries have also sent flights through the zone without following China's rules). As for the debt, there's a saying that if you owe the bank $100 you have a problem; if you owe the bank $100 million the bank has a problem.
Re:I am afraid tech lines are being narrowed... (Score:5, Informative)
To make matters worse, they own most of our debt
That's not true in any sense. The US owns most of its debt. China owns the largest share of foreign held debt (though less than 1/4 of that). Altogether they hold less than 10% of the US debt.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"
Re: (Score:2)
b) we already cooperate with those we used to call enemies (like russia) and we made an international space station.
But forbid [wikipedia.org] cooperation with China (not formally an enemy even now) in spite of the other participants in ISS agreeing to it.
d) china steals all their technology
It doesn't need to. China cooperates [wikipedia.org] with the same partners as US (probably with the exception of Japan). And them some others - e.g. Brazil [wikipedia.org] closer to Equator, better suited for space launches.
we invent it.
Wrong tense. NASA's budget in decline [wikipedia.org] drives NASA in the role of a museum custodian [theconversation.com] rather than a science/technology promoter.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a little behind the times. We â" the U.S.A. â" have been a nation of no consequence for a while now.
That is incorrect. USA as of this moment is still millitary-wise the mightiest superpower. Economically it is still one of the top nations. And while its physical territory area is not biggest the world has ever seen, influentially it is the greatest.
Every nation has internal problems. IMO the golden era (That peaked with the moon landings. USA will be forever remembered and respected for that) is over, but there is still VERY long to go before you can say that USA is of no consequence.
We can only hope that
Re: (Score:2)
All of those points you made are true.
It was the time of the cold war with plenty of corruption and bad decisions. However, in my personal opinion when looking at the country and its accomplishments as a whole, it was still the greatest time for the nation.
But then perhaps I just idealize the Greatest/Silent generations. But given how they fought in the world war and recovered from its aftermath, I think they deserve the names they have been given.
Meanwhile in the U.S.... (Score:3)
Instead of spending tax dollars on hiring people and companies to do the same, the government is choosing to give the money away for nothing in return...except votes. Well played, entrenched politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of spending tax dollars on hiring people and companies to do the same
there is (currently) no reason to go back to the moon. besides, rovers can do a better job of science experiments and are waaaay cheaper to send. we may use it as an outpost for deep space stuff when we get to that point but it's a waste of money right now.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, the hydrogen and oxygen is completely useless. We can send that stuff up from here.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely the point. The general public for the most part doesn't care about rovers because they can't fantasize about being one. But, send humans and people want to be part of it.
I'm holding out (Score:2)
historical perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
Googling slashdot over the past 15 years or so, it seems like China is always just ten years away from putting a man on the moon. Vaporware or hype? You decide:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/02/05/20/1224219/china-plans-moonbase
http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/10/04/2117217/the-new-moon-race
http://science.slashdot.org/story/04/05/18/1639246/china-scrubs-moon-mission-plans
http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/05/30/1227223/
Re: (Score:2)
DYM vacuumware?
An old joke (Score:4, Funny)
Today it looks more like Moon will be China-red and Coca-Cola sign written by them too....
Re: (Score:2)
It's from Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon [wikipedia.org].
The protagonist got funding by claiming the Soviets were going to paint a Hammer & Sickle on the moon. He also got funding from the "Moca-Cola" corporation by claiming that rival company "6+" was going to paint a 6+ logo on the moon.
Oh goody! (Score:2)
A new lunar crater!
I wonder (Score:2)
And the Russians - they came close but failed in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Will they plant their flag right next to the U.S. flag?
Nope - the US congress to take care of that [theconversation.com].
The crater isn't Sinus Iridum... (Score:2)
It's *IN* Sinus Iridum. Sinus Iridum is the "Bay of Rainbows".
Re: (Score:2)
This will help LADEE (Score:1)
Fortuitously, this mission will let LADEE, NASA's recently-launched Lunar atmosphere mission, collect more data:
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2013/11262206-change-3.html [planetary.org]
The coincidence of Chang'e 3 arriving at the Moon after LADEE has begun observations has developed into a serendipitous occurrence for lunar science. Because we don't understand very well how exospheric gases are added to and removed from the Moon, what has landed in our laps is an unplanned (but controlled) experiment. A known quantity of gases - of known composition - will be added to the lunar atmosphere at a precisely known time, in a precisely known place. One could have not designed a better experiment to measure how this addition of material is distributed, how its distribution evolves over time, and how these expelled gases dissipate into cislunar space. Even better, LADEE will have almost a full month to monitor and characterize the lunar atmosphere before Chang'e arrives, thus allowing us to first observe the "natural" Moon and then the "contaminated" Moon and how the lunar atmosphere recovers from its defilement.
None of this was prearranged - the Chinese schedule their missions on the basis of their own time-table and programmatic needs (just as NASA's lunar goals have changed over the last 5 years). But because of a fortuitous alignment of schedules, we have a unique opportunity to observe in real time how the Moon works. Hopefully, the Chinese will provide us with detailed mass numbers of their spacecraft and exactly what variety of fuel it carries, but even if they don't, physics dictates a certain mass and volume of the exhaust gas and its composition will be measured by LADEE (allowing us to know the type of fuel used). China's December lander mission to the Moon will provide our U.S. mission with a welcome bit of "traffic exhaust," giving scientists the opportunity to learn more from LADEE than we'd originally envisioned.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"you have to wonder if it s just a question of money keeping us down, or if it s also a risk avoidance mentality."
Wait to send meat passengers until robots are perfected. Development of remote-manned systems can proceed faster, and as space is permanently and utterly hostile to human life we wil require robots to do almost everything outside the areas we will live in anyway. No an option, so sending meat first is not just silly but counterproductive as a use of resources if you wan to send meat later.
Human
Re: (Score:2)
Wait to send meat passengers until robots are perfected.
Why is it you are of the opinion that we can not do things in parallel?
Robot development is essential and critical. No one is arguing against that. But that is just one part of the whole thing. Robots don't need life support or as much of radiation protection. Are we thus should stop research into those two areas until robots get perfected?
Surely there are many scientists and engineers that have specialized in the area of human space presence, but do not have as much to contribute towards designing next gen
Re: (Score:2)
We have thousands of years to send humans for entertainment, while we can more quickly send generations of robots for the same money. Resources are finite, and we need robots on Terra too.
Let countries other than the US send humans for vanity reasons. The world is rich and doesn't need US leadership. It matters that humanity get the tech, not necessarily that US oligarchs get the tech first.