Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Moon Space

Russia Partners With China for Lunar Space Station (theverge.com) 118

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Russia and China have signed an agreement to build and work on an "International Scientific Lunar Station" orbiting the Moon, the countries' space agencies announced Tuesday. From a report: The space powers had been in talks for months as Russia mulled over whether it would participate in NASA's Gateway program, a rival lunar space station to be built by a coalition of other countries in the next decade. The International Scientific Lunar Station that Russia and China will work on is "a complex of experimental research facilities created on the surface and/or in the orbit of the Moon," Roscosmos said in a statement. It will be designed to support a variety of research experiments "with the possibility of long-term unmanned operation with the prospect of a human presence on the moon," the statement said.

Like NASA, China has been courting international support for its own plans to put infrastructure on the Moon. It's also sent several robotic Chang'e missions to the Moon, including the first landing on the Moon's far side and a swift sample retrieval mission in December. The lunar space station agreement, signed virtually between China's space chief Zhang Kejian and Russia's space chief Dmitry Rogozin, marks the latest development in Beijing's efforts to explore the Moon alongside rivals like NASA, which is barred from working with China under a law passed by Congress in 2011.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Partners With China for Lunar Space Station More

Russia Partners With China for Lunar Space Station

Comments Filter:

  • Space Race! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kristoph ( 242780 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @12:28PM (#61140902)

    This sounds like the beginning of a new space race which is great! Hopefully it will accelerate exploration and development of space.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      I agree with Obama that we should do something different than Apollo. I'd like to see an asteroid or Mars-moon personned landing. Of course Mars is the Big Prize, but we probably have to walk before we run by practicing distance missions. It would be nice to do both the moon and distance missions, but because of debt we can't get greedy.

      The photo-ops form Mars' moons would be spectacular, by the way. [popularmechanics.com]

      • As for me, I want to see a larger ISS (say, large enough to spin for Mars surface gravity, a lunar-orbiting equivalent, a permanent base or three on the moon, an Earth-Mars Cycler, and bases on Mars and one or both of its moons.

        But I'll settle for a station in lunar orbit, a base on the moon, and the cycler (built largely of lunar material)...

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          The existing ISS hasn't shown much practical use so far (relative to cost), and I don't think a bigger one would help.

          • The existing ISS hasn't shown much practical use so far (relative to cost), and I don't think a bigger one would help."

            Actually a bigger ISS would help, It would be a great place to build Interplanetary craft in Orbit.

            BUT it would need to be part of a larger infrastructure that included easy Earth/ISS flights carrying more than just supplies for the stations crew. Parts to start fabricating the ships that will be needed for the future. An Earth/Luna ferry that constantly travels from Earth orbit to Luna orbit for easy transfer of supplies to and from Luna. A Luna orbit station like Rusiia and China are talking about now

            • If Humanity doesn't commit to going the full distance and doing it right "Space Exploration" will fizzle out like it always has so far.

              There's no way to do it right. FTL travel is impossible.

              • I think you are misreading Einstein. Einstein said that nothing can _accelerate_ to the speed of light because its mass becomes infinite. But nothing prevents traveling FTL if you can skip the acceleration process. ;-)

            • Actually a bigger ISS would help, It would be a great place to build Interplanetary craft in Orbit.

              We really are not ready for that.
              BUT, what would make good sense is to have multiple space stations in orbit, with taxis/trucks that can move between them. This would be useful for training, building, etc.

          • Have to differ with you.
            While the science has over all been miserable, the engineering has been great. We have learned a lot about how to survive in space.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Tablizer ( 95088 )

              Okay, I'll grant you that: ISS indeed taught us much about the human body in space. But we can also learn such by distance-based missions, such as to asteroids or Mars moons. Thus, if it's an either-or choice, then I choose Mars moons. Pikachu!

        • Japan was supposed to build a life size centrifuge, but stopped when W said that we would not launch. Sad.

      • Apolo was a great proof of concept but it had limited long term impact on human space exploration or habitation. If we want to be a space faring species we need a path to space habitation, not simply vanity projects to mars or the asteroids.

        That path almost certainly goes through a larger space station or a moon station or, better yet, both.

      • Actually, there is no choice. It will not be SLS that does the moon/mars for the west. It will be Starship. And to make it low costs, it will need to do NUMEROUS launches. As such, SX must do p2p launches on earth AND/OR Earth2lunar launches. And I suspect that SX will do both.

    • Not sure what's worse, Russian designs with Chinese manufacture (good engineering which won't fit together and explode as soon as the button is pressed) or Chinese designs with russian manufacture (built like a soviet tanks which would withstand any explosion, but do nothing except fall over as the button is pressed).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by fazig ( 2909523 )
        Eh, let the results be the judge of the efforts.

        I wish them much success. And I'm looking forward to possible progress.

        I'm not looking forward to the propaganda though.

        • Eh, let the results be the judge of the efforts. I wish them much success. And I'm looking forward to possible progress.

          Hmm...

          I think I actually worry most about them succeeding...

          China and Russia with a space station to themselves, right above earth, staring down at the free western world.

          What could possibly go wrong there?

          • ...staring down at the free western world.

            And doing what? Lobbing rocks at Washington?
            Neither Russia nor China has any interest in starting a war with "the free western world".

            • Neither Russia nor China has any interest in starting a war with "the free western world".

              I don't suppose you've been reading all the stories about their hacking into ours and other countries' infrastructure , no?

              I believe China shut part of India's electric grid down as a bit of a threat just a few weeks ago, etc.

              China has been building up artificial islands as bases for years now.

              I don't put it past them to put up a rail gun or two up there....

              • I don't put it past them to put up a rail gun or two up there....

                What would they gain from doing that? The Chinese would lose their biggest customer and what would happen to Russia?
                You've read too much science fiction.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @02:04PM (#61141394)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Indeed. I hope in 30 years Chinese engineering can elevate itself out of same quality level. But right now the reality is the Japanese saw that quality over quantity is a viable business. The Chinese... well they do have *some* high quality manufacturing. But in the general case you get what you pay for, and China's manufacturing industry's key selling point is that you don't pay much.

      • though perhaps they could decide if they intended to use metric or imperial unlike you merkins well at least before the project engages in rapid unscheduled disassembly.

        • Who you calling merkin! If I were a merkin I wouldn't do a rapid unscheduled disassembly, I would simply land really really hard because let's face it the math is easier when you assume there's 1000ft in a mile :-)

    • This sounds like the beginning of a new space race which is great! Hopefully it will accelerate exploration and development of space.

      As long as you don't mind the USA isn't going to be involved this time. Too heavily in debt and no political will.

      • Actually, most other nations are deeper debt, relative to GDP, and polictical will is SUPERIOR under O and hopefully, Biden.

  • I hope they actually have a plan to do something with it beyond "lets do that thing again", unlike NASA and the Artimis mission.

    I mean, come on guys. DO SOMETHING. Build a friggin' giant radio telescope. Or a giant billboard. Anything. Just create a plan to actually do something this time.

    • They are doing something; "All your bases are us."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      No, do something useful. Build a factory that makes I beams and solar cells. *Then* you build a giant radio telescope.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

        No, you plan to build a radio telescope. Then you figure out the best way to do that and construct the infrastructure to achieve that goal. If the best way to do that includes building factories for i-beams and solar cells, then you do that in support of the main goal.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          No, you build infrastructure that can be used for things you haven't figured out yet. Infrastructure has always been the key to economic development, and economic development has always been the key to long term expansion.

          The quickest and easiest way to build a big radio telescope on the moon is to send up all the bits from Earth and some people or robots to put the thing together. Cool, now you've got a radio telescope. By planning to build infrastructure, particularly manufacturing capability, on the moon

  • Sure, Jan (Score:4, Funny)

    by algaeman ( 600564 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @12:31PM (#61140924)
    It will be interesting to see which group builds the better version of the NASA designs.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dstwins ( 167742 )

      Well, lets see..

      Since Russia was involved in the original ISS design (along with the US, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, etc..).. I fail to see your point.

      China COULD have participated as well, but the US specifically excluded China... So now China is partnering with Russia. In fact, in the space race game, Russia actually won it.. (the US claims it won by simply bypassing getting to space and focused on the moon only.. essentially winning by moving the goal post) and Russia could have wo

      • LOL.
        The Soviets (which was Eastern Germany, Hungary, Czech, Poland, etc, and Russia) got to space first. Nobody says otherwise.
        America got to the moon first, and that was the goal post when Kennedy declared it as such. It was not a case of moving it. BOTH the Soviets, along with America, have shot for many things, such as Venus Landing (Soviets own that), and Mar's landings (Soviets and Russia STILL have not successfully put a lander, rover, etc on it.

        And as to the ISS, no. Most of it was designed and p
    • I see what you did there. Isn't it amazing how China can announce landers with no previous experience: With help from spies like Meyya Meyyappan, Zhengdong Cheng, the list goes on ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] )

  • The Russian and the Chinese will get there first (Score:3)

    by layabout ( 1576461 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @12:39PM (#61140984)
    But I'm not sure they will be able to return.
  • They're going to drop bombs on us from the moon.

    • Re:OH, great... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @12:57PM (#61141062)

      As Heinlein pointed out in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" (1966), the Moon is at the top of a rather deep gravity well. So people on the Moon would find it much cheaper and almost as effective just to drop rocks on Earth.

      • Heinlein was writing fiction to make an entertaining story and a close look at this "cheap, effective" weapon reveals it is a fantasy.

        Cheap? Just rocks right?

        To start with - do you know what happens if you drop a 100 ton rock from Lunar orbit into the atmosphere? What happens with some regularity when stony meteors in the same weight range hit the atmosphere - the deceleration force shatters them and they explode at such a high altitude that no damage at all is done on the ground.

        So your cheap rocks have to

        • Why do you have to hit anything? Drop engough big enough rocks and wait for nuclear winter to do it's job.

  • So, they found the plans to Stanley Kubrick's basement.

  • Good thing we have Joel Kinnaman on our side!

  • History (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @01:08PM (#61141128)

    If Roscosmos actually built all the things they've talked about publicly in the last 20 years, humans would be a multi-planet species and Elon Musk wouldn't have bothered to found SpaceX. Roscosmos talks a biiiig game, but rarely (almost never) has any money to back it up. The Russian oligarch habit of stealing all of the money, leaving none at all for the project, means nothing gets done. The Chinese bureaucracy only steals some of the money, so they've been actually building stuff.

    China is going to learn the same lesson that NASA learned with ISS, that Russia pays for nothing. The Zarya module of the ISS was built by Russia—paid for by NASA. The Zvezda module was partially sponsored by Pizza Hut. It's true. Look it up. It was launched with no backup and no insurance, so NASA built a substitute module in case it was destroyed on launch. Fortunately it wasn't necessary, but it was par for the course in the Russian space program. The Rassvet module was so slapdash that Russia didn't even launch it. It flew on a Shuttle launch, and NASA noticed on the ground at the time that the paint was peeling off of it already. NASA funneled money to Russia to build other modules as well, officially for other purposes, but it was an open secret that NASA paid for ISS.

    Roscosmos talks a big game, and could build things if they weren't eternally broke. Maybe they'll build something nice with Chinese money.

    • I gotta second this sentiment, it's spot on.

      The Russian space programs reputation for gritty reliability has taken many hits over the past decade and seems a shell of it's former self. I can only imagine the Chinese teamed up to leverage Russia's history and experience with capsules and other human spaceflight systems.

      For as much of a giant boondoggle SLS and Orion are there is actual hardware that should in theory fly at some point in the next 2-3 years with the requirements for this kind of mission, to s

    • Maybe they'll build something nice with Chinese money.

      If this is for show, they'll collaborate on planting flags on the lunar surface. If this is the real deal, they'll focus all of their efforts on reusable rockets.

      Russian ideas in combined with Chinese industrial might; could be effective...

    • Actually, America has paid almost ALL of the ISS costs, and that esp. includes the Russian side.

      However, keep in mind that Other than Russia and America, NONE of the ISS partners had real experience in space. This has allowed multiple nations to learn and benefit. Where will this go? It enables us to get to the moon and mars with redundancy.

    • The Russian oligarch habit of stealing all of the money, leaving none at all for the project, means nothing gets done. The Chinese bureaucracy only steals some of the money, so they've been actually building stuff.

      And the American way is to jack up the price tag 3 times, and donate some of that to your congressmen and their SuperPAC for a tax deduction.

  • A win-win situation (Score:3)

    by ugen ( 93902 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @01:09PM (#61141140)

    The amount of budget funds they will be able to "utilize" (hint-hint) together is orders of magnitude more than each of them could handle individually. I predict lots of newly minted $ millionaires in both countries.

  • It will be interesting to see how well the two authoritarian countries cooperate. With each guarding secrets while simultaneously spying on the other, it seems a bizarre relationship. OTOH the scientists, like most scientists, tend to ignore politics and the drum and bugle call to nationalism. They may well cooperate and together spread new knowledge for all to enjoy. Depending upon how this evolves, the globe could become more divided or better joined.

  • Didn't they make us pay for a huge chunk of ISS when they "couldn't afford" their sections on their own?

  • The US included btw. An orbital station is uninspiring and will be seen as a waste. If we had a moon base the discoveries and pictures of rocks/minerals would be engaging not to mention weâ(TM)ll find out a lot more.

    Build a moon base already. Even if itâ(TM)s a one barrack.

    • Plus a base would be easier to expand than a space station.

    • An orbital station has the benefit of a way point for excursions to and from the moon. Leave Earth orbiting station in capsule, orbital insertion around the moon, dock with station, use reusable lander to land on moon, come back to station, slingshot around moon to return to Earth orbiting station in original capsule.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Yes but if we had a moon base all we'd get is a bunch of pictures of rocks. Those rocks are of little value; we don't need the materials. A earth orbit station may be useful for scientific observation without obstructions, man made satellites are useful for coordinating things back here on the ground- everything else not so much. I know its not fun because we all dream of Star Trek like space faring but it aint going to happen. The distances are to vast and the energy requirements to high, and the time scal

  • Russia hasn't done anything serious with their space program beyond steady state operations in a long long time. Its mostly kept around for prestige reasons. By partnering with China there is a decent chance they will slow down Sino efforts.

  • This is good for the world. The more people doing science, the better.

  • I still don't think that some country like China ignoring international agreements and claiming the Moon as their terrirtory is off the table.
    We'd better damned well start working on a Moon colony if we want to prevent that from happening.

    • I still don't think that some country like China ignoring international agreements and claiming the Moon as their terrirtory is off the table. We'd better damned well start working on a Moon colony if we want to prevent that from happening.

      The moon has always been a part of China. They found an old map that says so.

  • I think we should take small steps and large ones. So I am all in for the Moon. But, to get to Mars on the other hand, it would take 7 months to get to there and 7 to get back and 1 month in orbit. The longest anyone has been in space, 1 person, was 14 months. And that was not deep space, so there is still alot of research that needs to be done before we go there.

    • Shortest trip to Mars is about 3 month. But I guess then next window for returning makes that a much longer return trip.

  • By the time this launches, we will hopefully have SpaceX send their ships to orbit. This might sound like a strange comparison, however the interior volume of a Starship is larger than all ISS modules put together.

    China wants to be in the game, and was previously rejected from ISS cooperation. Russia has the technology, but no money. But even together they are building the toys of the 20th century, and the space race for 21st will be much more different.

    • But even together they are building the toys of the 20th century, and the space race for 21st will be much more different.

      What's wrong with learning to walk before starting to run?

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Close