China's Rover Finds Layers of Surprise Under Moon's Far Side (nytimes.com) 55
The Chang'e-4 mission, the first to land on the lunar far side, is demonstrating the promise and peril of using ground-penetrating radar in planetary science. From a report: China's robotic Chang'e-4 spacecraft did something last year that had never been done before: It landed on the moon's far side, and Yutu-2, a small rover it was carrying, began trundling through a crater there. One of the rover's instruments, a ground-penetrating radar, is now revealing what lies beneath. In a paper published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, a team of Chinese and Italian researchers showed that the top layer of the lunar soil on that part of the moon is considerably thicker than some expected -- about 130 feet of what scientists call regolith.
"It's a fine, dusty, sandy environment," said Elena Pettinelli, a professor of mathematics and physics at Rome Tre University who was one of the authors of the paper. Based on what NASA astronauts observed during the Apollo moon landings, other scientists said they would have expected one-quarter as much soil. "That's a lot of regolith," said David A. Kring, a senior scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston who is not involved with the Chinese moon mission. "That's food for thought." Chang'e-4 landed just over a year ago inside Von Karman crater, a 110-mile-wide depression, and continues to explore a part of the moon that has not been seen up close before.
"It's a fine, dusty, sandy environment," said Elena Pettinelli, a professor of mathematics and physics at Rome Tre University who was one of the authors of the paper. Based on what NASA astronauts observed during the Apollo moon landings, other scientists said they would have expected one-quarter as much soil. "That's a lot of regolith," said David A. Kring, a senior scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston who is not involved with the Chinese moon mission. "That's food for thought." Chang'e-4 landed just over a year ago inside Von Karman crater, a 110-mile-wide depression, and continues to explore a part of the moon that has not been seen up close before.
Le sigh (Score:3)
I wish that the US were this sort of adventurous these days. I wish that we had manufacturing capacity and a self-sufficient economy.
Wishes in one hand...
Re: (Score:2)
We do, we've got Space Force! [ytimg.com]
Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Informative)
The US space program is still well ahead of China's, though there's certainly a risk of China catching up and surpassing it. China has one operating lunar orbiter, and has landed two probes on the moon, each with its own rover. They had one Mars mission, but as happens so often with Mars missions, it failed.
The US, on the other hand, has had more successful Mars missions than all other countries combined. Seven of the US missions are currently operational and 16 completed their missions (more successes than the Soviets and Russia combined even tried). Meanwhile, the ESA has two operational missions and Israel has one, ESA completed one mission, and the Soviets completed five missions.
I agree that the US manned space program is a mess, but that should get sorted out very soon with the crewed Dragon capsules starting around May. If Boeing can get their act together, there will be a backup to the Dragon, and with some luck, SLS will get canceled if Starship can demonstrate the necessary capabilities in the next two years, especially if it can demonstrate crewed capabilities by 2023 or so. Bonus points if Bigelow can start serial production of its modules to start up a commercial space station.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You responded to a post that laid out everything you needed to know, and addressed none of it. And got modded up for some reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, they haven't been modded at all. That's their karma bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my bad. Long time lurker - never really cared about that stuff.
Still - don't understand the US space pessimism.
Re: (Score:2)
The post I responded to us saying US manned space exploration will be fixed as e.g. the (SpaceX) Dragon and then Starship come online. I am saying that there is only so much truth to this, because SpaceX is not just part of the "US Space Program." It is somewhat and will increasingly be a privatized space program, not "US." The next big milestone in manned space exploration is sending somebody to Mars, and it is unclear how "US" (vs "SpaceX", with various funding sources)
Re: (Score:1)
Because you can't communicate.
You responded to a post, and apparently were ignoring the first two paragraphs of that post, to only talk about manned exploration. Even though you started out your post talking about space exploration.
Manned space exploration is for sci-fi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This ^^. How does everyone get this so wrong? Just so much general pessimism in the US these days.
On top of what parent posted, manned space missions are moronic compared to unmanned missions at this point in our technological capability.
Re: (Score:1)
On top of what parent posted, manned space missions are moronic compared to unmanned missions at this point in our technological capability.
While technically correct, you completely ignore the human factors involved in exploration. It's difficult to get people excited about robots doing the exploring. Putting boots on the surface of a moon or planet, while usually less rewarding scientifically and definitely more expensive, gets the public excited. And that excitement drives funding. And that funding drives more exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think boots on the ground provide less rewards than just instruments. I would argue they certainly provide more. Not much different than inperson vs remote meetings. Sure the reward per million dollars may go down, but the set of all possible rewards is much larger.
The fact that an intelligent being is physically there just adds a whole new layer of exploration, critical thinking, and experimental possiblities. I understand what you are saying and I too think we just dismiss this aspect of human
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think boots on the ground provide less rewards than just instruments.
It's not an issue of "less rewards" so much as vastly increased costs and complexity of the mission. This necessarily creates fewer missions overall. The question becomes whether the fewer "boots on the ground mission" approach yields more science per dollar spent. Historically it has not, even if manned missions yielded superior amounts of science individually.
Note I'm not trying to make the case for fewer manned missions. Quite the opposite. I'm just being realistic about why those missions need to h
Re: (Score:2)
At a cost of less than one Indian billionaire spent on his daughter's wedding.
Re:Le sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it have to be a race? You could work together instead.
Kennedy was working on doing a joint moon mission with the Russians. That all died when he did but it could have kept the moon missions going for longer than they did if the resources of two countries were involved and there were two systems for getting there. The plan was for the US and Russia to share information but build their own rockets and meet in lunar orbit.
Re: Le sigh (Score:1)
If Boeing can get their act together, there will be a backup to the Dragon
Pfft, those guys?? Dragon will be a backup to Dragon, and then Starship.
Re: (Score:1)
The US space program is still well ahead of China's, though there's certainly a risk of China catching up and surpassing it.
Funny how you describe that as a "risk". Oh, my, the Chinese might do more science than us, we must not let that happen!
On the other hand, if you really want it to be a race, that's fine by me. It's been a while since we had a good space race, and it shows.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be ignorant of the accomplishments and extent of the US space program. Nothing else comes close.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not ignorant of them. My bookshelf and life are crammed with the records of our achievements (Stages to Saturn, Ignition, the Rocketdyne book on rocket engine design, etc.).
How do I put this?
I want more for us. (cf. my username) I want more for our country, more for our species. I want us to become a truly Universal species, not just some accident on a rock.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I was going to ask you for a citation, searched Google myself, and found this [nationmaster.com] claiming we're actually #1 by value.
I guess I'm doublepluswrongungood.
What more do you want? (Score:3)
I wish that the US were this sort of adventurous these days.
The U.S. has Space X which is working on regular trips to Mars, the moon and sub-orbital flights across the globe.
What more do you want?
Oh you want the GOVERNMENT to do more? Why?? Why when industry can finally take over vastly more efficiently?
Why do you want government to send a handful of people you can admire from afar to other places, instead of going there yourself eventually on a $2k ticket?
NASA is great at developing things like rovers a
Re:What more do you want? (Score:4, Informative)
Why do you want government to send a handful of people you can admire from afar to other places, instead of going there yourself eventually on a $2k ticket?
That wouldn't even cover the fuel to orbit. The Falcon 9+Crew Dragon can house max seven and costs $200k in fuel so $30k/person even if the rocket came free. The Super Heavy+Starship will have roughly 7x the capacity to LEO and 3.5x the fuel so around $15k/person. Not that I think the fuel price will become a significant part of the launch cost any time soon, NASA is paying >$50 million per seat though to be fair they only use four seats. Just getting it down to one million per seat would be impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't want "the GOVERNMENT to do more". I didn't say that anywhere. I want the US, this nation, these people, these humans beings to be more excited and give two shits and want to push back the frontier themselves,
Private industry wanting to be in space would greatly expand access. I think private entities finding a way to make money in space is key, and I imagine some of the first are likely to be mining concerns for construction and manufacturing needs local to outputs. SpaceX is doing great things
Layer of Surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the Impact? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read "A Fall of Moondust" (Score:4, Interesting)
Old Arthur C. Clark book - had an interesting description of what dust is like in a vacuum and how you can deal with it.
Hint: you can't just scoop it up.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The good is that you don't have to chisel into it. You can just move it with something like a backhoe. The down-side is that since material would fall back into the hole, you have to move it further away and you can't carve out a Moon-cave. You have to build s sturdy structure and they bury it if you want a covered shelter.
This is just one part of the Moon though. Other parts might have exposed bedrock that could be quarried, if that turns out to be an easier scenario then we just build the base there
Re: (Score:2)
There are lava tubes on the near side that are kilometers wide and hundreds of kilometers long. I'm hoping a future winner of the DARPA Subterranean Challenge gets to send something like their rover to explore the lava tubes.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/auto... [ieee.org]
A monolith? (Score:5, Funny)
That would be a surprise.
Re: (Score:1)
Beats the microservice hype
Is that really a surprise? (Score:1)
I mean, Monday-morning quarterbacking is easy but if the dust layer is primarily micrometeoroids, it seems obvious to me that the lunar farside is going to be VASTLY more exposed to such impacts on the far side than the near side, no? Earth's gravity well should do a decent job of sweeping clear anything on an impact trajectory anywhere near earth, meaning a chunk of inbound vectors hitting the near side simply aren't possible.
Whatever proportion of the dust is lunar-impact ejecta, I guess I'd still assume
Re: (Score:2)
I'm *pretty* sure the real story is "there is no story (at this point)", but no one wants to say it.
Most emphasized by "that's food for thought".
Re: (Score:2)
Think about that for a little while and try to understand how people who like life would prefer to stay alive. I hate how stupid slashdot has become.
Was Arthur C. Clarke correct? (Score:2)
A Fall of Moondust
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That's awfully long to be an excerpt. Let's not get SlashDot in trouble.
Need to move (Score:4, Funny)
Dark side of the Moon (Score:2)
Well of course it's going to be different on that side.. Its the dark side of the moon after all..
Re: (Score:2)
China has better flashlights
Re: (Score:1)
Actually there is a "dark side". It just doesn't stay in the same place.