China Developing Manned Space Mission To the Moon 149
China is building a manned spacecraft capable of sending astronauts to the moon as well as near-Earth orbit flight, according to Chinese state media. From a report on CNBC: The official newspaper of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China cited system chief architect Zhang Bainan who claimed the craft is being designed to carry as many as six astronauts. The newspaper, Science and Technology Daily, quoted Zhang Bainan as saying China wished to catch up with international standards of space exploration. The fresh announcement follows a separate Chinese ambition to bring back samples from the moon before the end of this year.
Re: (Score:1)
Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)
Good for them. At least someone is interested in getting out into space.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. I really hope they do it. Just to show up the USA for what it's become since the 1960s.
Re: (Score:1)
By the end of 2018 we are scheduled to have
SpaceX Falcon Heavy around the moon
SLS around the moon.
And maybe New Glenn nearing its flight around the moon.
That is what USA has become since the 1960s... why didn't you know that?
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh, not all Americans wear a MAGA hat. If China gets space travel going to the Moon, so much the better. It might be cheaper to use their state-of-the-art rockets to get real payloads into orbit.
Of course, it would be nice if the US was hitting the moon again, rather than wasting cash on walls, private prisons, and no-bid contracts. However, until corporations are taxed the way they are in every other developed nation, that revenue just flies out of the US and to other countries.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Time to start thinking for yourself.
You do realize that the religious right (social conservatives) were not supportive of Trump. Trump was losing Utah up until the last 2 wks (not to Hillary but to Evan McMullin).
Wanting legal (as opposed to anything-goes) immigration is not equal to anti-science and anti-technology.
Being for free markets and capitalism as opposed to a government directed economy is not equal to anti-science and anti-technology.
Being for individualism as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, given what we've seen out of the Trump administration we can indeed conclude: MAGA hat == Anti-science
The people he's recruited for appointments clearly stated they reject scientific consensus and evidence based conclusions about many very serious scientific topics.. Why just today we have the head of the EPA saying that Co2 is not a primary contributor to global warming.
I find it even more interesting that the support you offer in evidence of your argument is a bunch of unrelated politically charged
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh look, some fuckwit with the SJW boogeyman again
Re: (Score:2)
Mormons are a very different group from the rest of the religious right. They don't like Trump because they're a historically persecuted religious minority. The rest of the religious right voted for him because they're the dominant religious group.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The far right continues to deny AGW, amongst other things.
The idea that you can restart coal would indicate that not only do you not believe in AGW (science), but do not understand how capitalism works. Coal has been diminishing in America DUE TO CAPITALISM. And this will continue so that by 2020, less than 15% of our electricity will come from coal. Maybe less.
Time for your far righties to start thinking since you have obviously shu
Re: (Score:2)
This foolishness opposing the pipelines is a clear example of this bs.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it would be nice if the US was hitting the moon again, rather than wasting cash on walls, private prisons, and no-bid contracts
Spending money on those things is Making America Great Again. Spending money on the Moon is not. If you disagree, you're unAmerican.
Re: (Score:2)
The manned spaceflight gap is an artifact of funding, nothing more.
So... why not highlight what YOUR country has done in space.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, right now in 2017, the USA's space program has two (2) functioning rovers on Mars, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Jupiter, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Saturn, a spacecraft operating in orbit around Ceres, a spacecraft on the way to its second encounter with a Kuiper belt object (after its flyby of Pluto), etc. If you want to review what the USA has done since the 1960's -- Since the 60's the USA has had successful missions to every planet in the Solar System, and orbiters around all of them from Mercury out to Saturn, plus five USA spacecraft are currently on their way out of the solar system. No other spacefaring nation will be able to say that anytime soon.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Replying to my own post because I should have added this -- with all that said about the USA space program, I fully applaud these Chinese efforts and those of all other nations (and private organizations). There is plenty of space out there for everyone. On the plaque which the Apollo 11 mission left on the moon in 1969, it says, "We came in peace for all mankind." Totally true or not, it's the right sentiment.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plaque which the Apollo 11 mission left on the moon in 1969, it says, "We came in peace for all mankind."
Every time I think about that plaque and the words on it, I get a tear in my eye. This is a perfect example of why Americans believe in America the country (not the government of America).
Life consciously chose to exit the gravity well in which it had evolved in and touched the Universe itself outside of life's birth place. This is easily the most amazing thing that has ever happened up to this point in history... and it was not "my country did it", it was, "we (as in all humans) did it".
Re: (Score:2)
30 years ago, America owned the commercial launches, which allowed us to launch massive numbers. Then the shuttle, combined with ULA, conspired to allow Russia and Europe to take over the Commercial launches. Now, SpaceX owns 2/3 of the commercial launch, and once BO hits that market, it will lead to competition that is designed to lower our costs even further.
At the same time, we are quickly moving towards private space. Now, you may not like it, but with the bulk of the commercial laun
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a point which is worth emphasising. Even with nuclear war(and i'm pessimistic enough to consider it likely in the long run) humanity is hard to wipe out completely, and it will remain easier to support a million people here than elsewhere. There's still something to be said for not putting everything in one basket though. The idea of moving away is ridiculous, the idea of spreading out is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no likely scenario within the next billion years where it wouldn't make more sense to build an underground habitat than a space habitat, if survival of the species if your only concern. Space exploration and yes even colonization should be pursued in the name of adventure and inspiration, not by pretending it's the most logical way to save the species.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The view is better
Re: (Score:3)
When I worked there I used to ask the folks at Goddard why not explore the seabed.
They all pretty much said because that is much harder to do.
On the One Hand... (Score:2)
...China has made impressive advancements in technology (I'll let you argue how that happened).
On the other, they have persistently shown that state propaganda goals are a higher priority than safety. [wikipedia.org]
Not much different (Score:3)
On the other, they have persistently shown that state propaganda goals are a higher priority than safety.
That would be no different than the current US president.
Re: (Score:2)
What recent president has thrown astronauts safety away to get missions to happen?
Or are you just another lying tea-bagger/neo-con type.
Re: (Score:2)
Security vs security theater (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems more like Turmp is interested in 'safety' to the detriment of literally everything else.
Trump has no interest in actual safety. He has a strong interest in "security" theater. Big difference between the two. One keeps us safe and the other keeps him elected. He cares about the later. Putting a wall on the US/Mexico border will do almost nothing for safety but it will do a lot to make paranoid conservatives happy.
Re: (Score:1)
Posting AC...
Why the hell a wall? For that cost, one could make a bunch of drones that just watch an area and then call the border patrol people when someone intrudes. Done right, it is the same protection, with a lot less of an environmental impact.
Take the cost savings and use it for infrastructure and perhaps some better diplomatic relationships with Mexico... Mexico's economy is booming, and is 15'th in the world for GDP. Might even be wise to set up a Schengen Agreement allowing for US/Canada/Mexico
Pointless walls (Score:3)
Why the hell a wall?
Because it makes a bunch of racist, idiot conservatives think they are solving an actual problem. People coming here to work - the horror... Ironically they could keep all the brown skinned people out much more effectively by helping Mexico boost their economy. They come here because there aren't jobs back home. What we should worry about is if the immigrants stop wanting to come here.
Done right, it is the same protection, with a lot less of an environmental impact.
Conservatives don't generally give much a shit about environmental impact. They think clean air is nothing more than a
Re: (Score:1)
You are trying to use logic to figure out Trump?
Proof of a manned mission: you just arrived from another planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, not caring much about safety will be a cost savings, not that they need it. China's current GDP is 9x larger than the US GDP was in 1969. That and given that technology has made many things cheaper, and the general outlines of how to do it have been proven, and it should be very feasible for them to mount an impressive mission.
Re:On the One Hand... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think the Chinese will cut corners on this one. It's one thing to make a piece of military equipment cheaper and accept higher casualties. It's a different ball game in space. You can just throw more soldiers into a battle. You can't just throw more astronauts at the Moon. They're worth too much. It's not *just* a human life on the line. It's the cost to their international prestige and the value of contracting services to other nations. We don't use Soyuz rockets just to save money. They're also one of the most (the most?) reliable man-rated boosters. I'm sure the Chinese would love to have a business like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Once we have a choice, that will stop.
And while I have issues with putin and trump, I am hopeful that Russia will be part of the lunar mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Already happened a bunch of times. (six?) SpaceX will be sending a pair of rich twats around the moon in 2018, be sure to come back then and post about how they couldn't get through the Van Allen belt.
Oh, and stop getting your science from shitty Fox documentaries. The moon landings happened and only tinfoil hat dickheads think otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And after they do land in the Moon you will no doubt invent new conspiracy theories to deny it.
Re: (Score:2)
When the Chinese return they'll will finally show us footage of all the studios we built there to film the moon landings. For real.
Rip out American Flag (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it'd be funny if they decided that they would rip out the American Flag and put theirs in it's place. What you going to do about it, bitch?
The American flags on the moon would all be bleached white by now.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if China will use a flag with structural colors.
Re: (Score:1)
They turned into French flags decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be funny if they brought back some of the items left on the moon, and which were subsequently sold in auctions, like a Hasselblad camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better, just say "We went where they said they landed, and there was nothing. Whole thing must have been hoax."
Give it a week to let the conspiracy theorists go nuts, then tweet "LOL jk".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bring it back and hand it to Trump. "Found this, thought you might want it."
And it's only (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably this explains why you posted this comment on an iPhone made in China? Get real, the tech playing-field is tilting away from the West if anything. This is cultural will power, whilst you are busy building a wall against the Mexicans the Chinese will be on the moon advertising for business and guess where everybody will be going shopping?
Re:And it's only (Score:4, Informative)
Looks more like twenty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
China's wall was to keep outsiders in. Mongolian raiders could cross the wall going south, sure, but with a strong army unit at the breach the Chinese more mobile forces could pin the raiders against the wall, where they could either be wiped out or desperately scale the wall with no loot.
I welcome this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Manned exploration of the Moon is honestly kinda pointless. It's close enough that signal delay isn't an issue for robots, and that's one of, maybe even the *only*, advantage humans have over robots for exploration. Robots are cheaper, simpler, lighter, less fragile, easier to handle, and less likely to malfunction. Even in the 60s manned Moon missions were as much a pissing match between the US and USSR as they were a valid scientific goal. Now, if they send people to the Moon and keep them there for exten
Re: (Score:2)
But we could have a long-term lunar scientific colony operating right now, if we really wanted to, and it's almost an embarrassment to mankind that we don't, nearly 50 years after Apollo 11.
Not really. It would have cost a great deal of money for comparably little scientific value.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People are inspired by astronauts and dream of becoming one. That's a big point. You might as well say art is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans need to merge with computers and become pure energy so that we can become eternal.
How's that for another whacked out idea that has an almost infinite higher probability of succeeding. Stop watching so much tv and take some upper division physics classes.
Re: (Score:2)
A mars colony would never work. We all know men are from Mars and women are from venus. You need both to have a self-sustaining colony.
Time for Trump to beat them and beat them to mars (Score:2)
Time for Trump to beat them and beat them to mars!!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Time for Trump to beat them and beat them to mars!!
Agreed. I for one would love to see him go. :-)
Bets, anyone? (Score:2)
Old and busted: The Middle East, Ukraine, ISIS
New hotness: Moonwars
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and by the way, I forgot to mention: We (the U.S.) has already been there, repeatedly, and we left our flag planted there. We could lay claim to the Moon if we really wanted to, but we wanted to play nice with everyone else.
Now, get your crap out of the South China Sea already; NOT YOURS, EITHER.
Actually a good thing (Score:2)
...with Trump's ego driven presidency, this news might be *just* what we needed to see substantial actual presidential pressure to advance the US space program.
Sometimes the cards just fall right.
Preproduction filming (Score:2)
Filming will begin this summer, giving enough time for "moon landing" conspiracy theorists to sow the seeds of doubt and uncertainty coupled with a healthy dose of conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice of the Chinese could land in the same location(s) as the US did just to prove that we were there first.
You know, for those people who don't believe that we put a mirror up there and we have been bouncing laser beams off of it to accurately measure the distance of the moon from us.
China, could you please... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should have blown up a US satellite. Than the EPA would have made the owner do the cleanup which would be the US govt in that case.
Frist step (Score:2)
First step when they get there:
Kick over the American flag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There will be fire. What happens if China puts a city the size of NYC on the moon, and is the only nation to do so? Could they dominate all of terrestrial access to space including to Mars? If nuclear weapons go optical/beam (think star wars), then the moon returns to being a strategic high-ground. Don't go killing civilians.
The moon would be almost like a star of death if that happened. We would have to team up with Ewoks to take down the shielding protecting it and destroy the moon.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
60s-era NASA astronauts couldn't be any taller than 5'11". Gus Grissom was only 5'5"; quite tiny if you ask me. Americans in general back then weren't that tall, and looking around me (I'm over 6') they still all look short to me, especially on the east coast.
Re: (Score:2)
The 60's were an unusual time where people believed in Jesus, did what he told them to do, worked as if they were motivated, and cared about each other.
So the way they kept black people from voting, and beat them mercilessly when they tried to peacefully walk across a bridge, that was people doing what Jesus told them to do and caring about each other?
Re: (Score:1)
You know, the same democrats who seceded from the country because they wanted to keep their slavery.
The only democrat I know from that era who wan't a racist was JFK who, you know, believed in limited government, limited taxes and (to come full circle) started the Apollo program.
Re: (Score:2)
What do Democrats have to do with anything? You're the one trying to claim the 60s were some kind of wonderful time when "people cared about each other". I simply proved you wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm saying your claims are only true for a slim exception of cases, which will always exist with any generalization as with this case and the racist Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)