China Speeds Up Moon Base Plan in Space Race Against America (space.com) 146
"China has formally approved three missions targeting the south pole of the moon, with the first to launch around 2024..." reports Space.com, "each with different goals and an array of spacecraft."
The trio make up the so-called fourth phase for the Chinese lunar exploration program, which most recently landed on the moon last December with a sample-return mission dubbed Chang'e 5. Wu Yanhua, deputy head of the China National Space Administration (CNSA), told China Central Television (CCTV) in a recent interview that the three missions had been approved.
Chang'e 7 will be the first to launch; Wu did not provide a timeline, but previous reporting indicates a hoped-for launch around 2024, with the mission to include an orbiter, a relay satellite, a lander, a rover and a "mini flying craft" designed to seek out evidence of ice at the lunar south pole. The various component spacecraft will carry a range of science instruments including cameras, a radar instrument, an infrared spectrum mineral imager, a thermometer, a seismograph and a water-molecule analyzer; the mission will tackle goals including remote sensing, identifying resources and conducting a comprehensive study of the lunar environment...
Chang'e 8 will launch later this decade and will be a step toward establishing a joint International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) with Russia and potentially other partners. The mission is expected to test technology for using local resources and manufacturing with 3D printing, according to earlier Chinese press statements.... The ILRS plan includes development of a robotic base which can be later expanded to allow astronauts to make long-term stays on the lunar surface in the 2030s.
China had previously scheduled their lunar research station for the year 2035, reports the South China Morning Post. The newspaper cites concerns from Zhang Chongfeng, deputy chief designer of China's manned space programme, that America's space program might ultimately seize common land on the moon. The US government and Nasa have proposed the Artemis Accords to set rules for future lunar activities. Already signed by more than a dozen US allies, the accords allow governments or private companies to protect their facilities or "heritage sites" by setting up safety zones that forbid the entry of others. China and Russia are opposed to the accords because this challenges the existing international protocols including the UN's Moon Agreement, which states that the moon belongs to the entire human race, not a certain party, according to Zhang.
But to effectively counter the US on the moon, China would have to "take some forward-looking measures and deploy them ahead of schedule", he said in a paper published in domestic peer-reviewed journal Aerospace Shanghai in June... Instead of building an orbiting "gateway", China would directly put a nuclear-powered research station on the moon. The unmanned facility would allow visiting Chinese astronauts to stay on the moon for as long as their American peers but only at a fraction of the cost. To counter the US territorial claims, China would also deploy a mobile station. This moon base on wheels would be able to roam freely on the lunar surface for over 1,000km, and the use of artificial intelligence technology would mean astronauts need not be present for its operation.
And, unlike the American programme, which focuses on surface activities, China would pay a great deal of attention to the exploration of caves, which could provide a natural shelter for the construction of permanent settlements.
Chang'e 7 will be the first to launch; Wu did not provide a timeline, but previous reporting indicates a hoped-for launch around 2024, with the mission to include an orbiter, a relay satellite, a lander, a rover and a "mini flying craft" designed to seek out evidence of ice at the lunar south pole. The various component spacecraft will carry a range of science instruments including cameras, a radar instrument, an infrared spectrum mineral imager, a thermometer, a seismograph and a water-molecule analyzer; the mission will tackle goals including remote sensing, identifying resources and conducting a comprehensive study of the lunar environment...
Chang'e 8 will launch later this decade and will be a step toward establishing a joint International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) with Russia and potentially other partners. The mission is expected to test technology for using local resources and manufacturing with 3D printing, according to earlier Chinese press statements.... The ILRS plan includes development of a robotic base which can be later expanded to allow astronauts to make long-term stays on the lunar surface in the 2030s.
China had previously scheduled their lunar research station for the year 2035, reports the South China Morning Post. The newspaper cites concerns from Zhang Chongfeng, deputy chief designer of China's manned space programme, that America's space program might ultimately seize common land on the moon. The US government and Nasa have proposed the Artemis Accords to set rules for future lunar activities. Already signed by more than a dozen US allies, the accords allow governments or private companies to protect their facilities or "heritage sites" by setting up safety zones that forbid the entry of others. China and Russia are opposed to the accords because this challenges the existing international protocols including the UN's Moon Agreement, which states that the moon belongs to the entire human race, not a certain party, according to Zhang.
But to effectively counter the US on the moon, China would have to "take some forward-looking measures and deploy them ahead of schedule", he said in a paper published in domestic peer-reviewed journal Aerospace Shanghai in June... Instead of building an orbiting "gateway", China would directly put a nuclear-powered research station on the moon. The unmanned facility would allow visiting Chinese astronauts to stay on the moon for as long as their American peers but only at a fraction of the cost. To counter the US territorial claims, China would also deploy a mobile station. This moon base on wheels would be able to roam freely on the lunar surface for over 1,000km, and the use of artificial intelligence technology would mean astronauts need not be present for its operation.
And, unlike the American programme, which focuses on surface activities, China would pay a great deal of attention to the exploration of caves, which could provide a natural shelter for the construction of permanent settlements.
Well Well!! (Score:5, Funny)
nasa contractors need the boost! (Score:2)
nasa contractors need the boost!
Re:nasa contractors need the boost! (Score:5, Informative)
NASA contractors are EXACTLY who are NOT needed. They will only help China out.
We need new ones such as SpaceX,
You apparently aren't aware that SpaceX is a NASA contractor.
SNC,
You apparently aren't aware that Sierra Nevada (SNC) is a NASA contractor.
Laytex Dover, etc.
OK, now you're lost me. Or do you mean Playtex (NASA contractor for space suits, a division of ILC Dover)?
Re:Well Well!! (Score:4, Funny)
It would be easy to stop though, just paint a big picture of Winnie the Pooh on the moon and then China will forbid everybody in the country from ever talking about the moon again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had to google:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
ego toy (Score:2)
No, let'em spend on ego toys. Instead let's send bots to far off places such as the nearest star system planets using nuclear power, float a boat-bot on Titan lakes, etc. etc. That's more interesting both scientifically and aesthetically.
Re: ego toy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they can spend on whatever toys they want to play with, it's not our call. I mean we could theoretically stop Jeff Bezos from building a rocket shaped like his wang and playing pretend astronaut but we did not and should not.
Re:Well Well!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the early 60s JFK wanted to work with the USSR on a joint moon mission. The idea was to share technology (and cost), with each country building its own spacecraft that would meet up in lunar orbit. An American and a Russian would go down to the surface together.
It's a real shame that his vision died with him, and that the US won't work with China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well Well!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You've forgotten the first soft landing on another celestial body? The first images of the far side? The first robot rovers? The first sample-return missions?
Re: (Score:2)
Not so simple, they were quite close to beat US, they had the first soft landing, the first unmanned Moon flyby, just their Almaz (?) capsule failed on reentry (this delayed their human flyby - for which they didn't need N1), so the Apollo 8 got the chance to have the first flyby (which it was not meant originally), just due to launch windows, US new it would probably be the only chance. And the Apollo 8 crew not only went for the flyby, but for the full Lunar orbit insertion - a brave bunch - and the rest
Re: (Score:2)
This just might get things moving.
Indeed. Though AFAIK China still has neither rocket nor spaceship, though working on it. To be fair US doesn't have a rocket either - to be precise - not a tested one, because SLS is waiting assembled for it's launch.
I just wonder if it's just about securing the location or their robots found something interesting worth speeding up a human mission.
Hong Kong was ruined by China (Score:1, Insightful)
It'll be interesting to see what repressive and sleazy ways the Chinese Communist Party ruins the moon.
Will they invade lunar Taiwan for choosing democracy and manufacturing higher quality semiconductors?
Will the make American astronauts' on Chinese payrolls deliver creepy hostage videos where they apologize for mentioning Taiwan as the independent nation that it is?
II's time to put China in its place on earth before it ruins the moon.
Re: (Score:3)
Already refuted that "wants to make it into small territories" nonsense. China will treat the moon like the South China Sea. A base or two and China will claim ownership.
"By raiding Stand News, one of the few remaining independent media outlets in Hong Kong, China's Communist regime struck another blow against the city's freedom. The raids came shortly after staged elections in which only preapproved candidates were allowed to run for office."
And let me know when we have a Social Credit System in the US whe
Re: (Score:2)
A base or two and China will claim ownership.
[Citation Needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to help.
https://www.theguardian.com/ne... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with the moon.
Re: Hong Kong was ruined by China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woo, nasty remarks. Did I hit a nerve?
The tennis player is under detention and her social media is closed down, pretty obvious. Meanwhile the US has entered into an agreement with multiple other countries about the moon, the Artemis Accords. China was mysteriously absent. China will treat the moon like the South China Sea.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no language about "partitioning" in the Artemis Accords, which was signed by 8 countries. If China doesn't like it maybe they can come up with their own proposal. From what I am seeing the only country that wants to have anything to do with China's space program is Russia, which is also an authoritarian dictatorship.
As for the unfortunate Peng Shuai, "been in contact with" someone doesn't mean she is free. And the private company Twitter does not censor people who accuse government officials of sex
I'd rather war on the moon, than here on Earth. (Score:2, Troll)
I'd rather China on the moon, than here on Earth. (Score:2)
The rest of the world would probably be better off that way in the long run.
Viva, competition (Score:2)
Well, we've lacked motivation beyond tribal dominance, so i guess this is the best of us.
Pray tell, could the billionaires change the game?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Pray tell, could the billionaires change the game?
In a sense, Elon Musk already has by heavily reducing the cost of rocket launches for the US, in addition to very quickly restoring our ability to put actual humans back in space after the end of the Space Shuttle program.
Though in the process of doing both, he really pissed off Bernie Sanders, who is still angry about the US winning the space race, and wishes all of that money would have gone towards forming the worlds biggest bread line instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Pray tell, could the billionaires change the game?
In a sense, Elon Musk already has by heavily reducing the cost of rocket launches for the US, in addition to very quickly restoring our ability to put actual humans back in space after the end of the Space Shuttle program.
Though in the process of doing both, he really pissed off Bernie Sanders, who is still angry about the US winning the space race, and wishes all of that money would have gone towards forming the worlds biggest bread line instead.
Musk will have a million people on Mars in 25 years - why would he care to make s silly moon landing when he's clearly going to rule the Universe soon. The moon is beneath the smartest person in any room.
Re: (Score:3)
Mars is a launch every 2 years. The moon can be launching daily.
Didn't Apollo missions launch at times that would put the astronauts on a path that would avoid the Van Allen belts? Did we figure out if this is necessary to prevent radiation exposure? If we have to time launches for this then how often can we launch? Is it still daily? It's not a period of years, I would guess, more like days or weeks.
Windbourne(moderating).
I would suggest not advertising who you are in anonymous comments, it only invites people to pretend to be you.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Apollo missions launch at times that would put the astronauts on a path that would avoid the Van Allen belts? Did we figure out if this is necessary to prevent radiation exposure? If we have to time launches for this then how often can we launch? Is it still daily? It's not a period of years, I would guess, more like days or weeks.
It was largely a directional thing. A course was plotted through the thinnest part of the belts, and they got through them quickly.
The radiation itself is mostly high energy protons, which are easier to shield against.
As for the launch window itself a large part of it would be plotting where the moon would be when the capsule arrived, and to use fuel efficiently. with Apollo there were a number of launch windows, because remember that there were parking orbits around the earth and moon. the good part is t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mars is a launch every 2 years. The moon can be launching daily.
Didn't Apollo missions launch at times that would put the astronauts on a path that would avoid the Van Allen belts? Did we figure out if this is necessary to prevent radiation exposure? If we have to time launches for this then how often can we launch? Is it still daily? It's not a period of years, I would guess, more like days or weeks.
Yes, in theory one can launch to the Moon every day, however Apollo required:
- safe passage through Van Allen belts
- landing site with direct radio communication from Earth
- landing site not too hot and not too cold (Moon day site is about 106C and night -183C)
- reentry and the following landing in the Pacific Ocean
These limitations made launching any day not available for Apollo.
Re: (Score:2)
The moon is beneath the smartest person in any room.
So does this explain his Dogecoin comment?
Always. I watched his Tesla truck rev2 presentation, and there is seriously something wrong with his fans.
He showed an animation of his new truck's acceleration versus a standard diesel tractor, and I swear the whole crowd orgasmed. Screaming cheering clapping. For an animation of something that doesn't exist.
Considering the way his fans hang on his every word as from God's lips to their ears, I'm predicting that Old Elon is going to become Howard Hughes rev 2. And recently, he's been sporting a Himml
Re:Viva, competition (Score:5, Informative)
Musk is a very wrong guy to talk to about SpaceX. Shotwell, the COO is. She actually does admit to realities within her PR appearances, unlike Musk who plays the role of "look into the future, not the reality" PR person.
So if you listen to Shotwell, she makes it very clear that they're still struggling to get the reusable booster costs down to sustainable levels. Turns out getting recyclable rockets be actually break even or even profitable really hard, because of how long the recycled boosters have to spend in checks (I think Shotwell's latest claim in a speech was well in excess of a month, whereas the goal remains close to 24 hours, i.e. they're not even in the ballpark of where they need to be according to their own words). All while SpaceX's plan of "we'll compensate for lack of profitability with sheer volume of launches", total global launches haven't meaningfully increased since SpaceX entered the scene if you don't count SpaceX launching their Starlink satellites. I.e. SpaceX's "increase in global launches" is generated by... SpaceX launching payloads for its another questionable program.
Which is why NASA is paying through the nose for SpaceX contracts, more than they used to pay for ULA. In fact, NASA had a field day when politicians forced them to subsidize SpaceX because of it in private. There were quite a few leaked internal NASA memos and emails from people behind launch programs of NASA raging at the leadership that they are forced to pay more for the same service than before with SpaceX as the launch provider being forced on them from above. SpaceX is in desperate need of income streams to finance the other endeavours, and they command significant PR machine which helped to pressure politicians into acting. Which may be a good thing ultimately, but the claim that costs came down is simply not true outside the PR world. They went way up early on when reusable rockets were just garbage, so payloads where lower for comparable costs per launch. Currently they're close to parity if I remember correctly, in large part because of problem mentioned above by Shotwell.
Re: Viva, competition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually not completely true as once you actually do the math SpaceX is about on par when it comes to manned launches to shuttle program at its peak, but let's grant that anyway, just for the argument's sake.
Are you trying to argue that SpaceX is great because it managed to barely edge out 40 year old technology that was never about getting people cheap into orbit? Because Soyuz exists, and it's way less expensive if you don't count monopoly surcharges Russians laid on foreign powers after it gained
Re: Viva, competition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if you listen to Shotwell, she makes it very clear that they're still struggling to get the reusable booster costs down to sustainable levels. Turns out getting recyclable rockets be actually break even or even profitable really hard, because of how long the recycled boosters have to spend in checks (I think Shotwell's latest claim in a speech was well in excess of a month, whereas the goal remains close to 24 hours, i.e. they're not even in the ballpark of where they need to be according to their own words).
You start off by advising listening to Shotwell instead of Musk, then you quote Musk and attribute it to Shotwell. You are very confused.
SpaceX is profitable on every launch. Falcon 9 reusable launches are even more profitable. They have publicly stated this, repeatedly, and we have no reason to believe otherwise. To be precise, Gwynne Shotwell has stated this, repeatedly. The goal to turn around a reusable rocket in 24 hours is purely Musk aspiration. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the continue
Re: Viva, competition (Score:5, Informative)
But not nearly as much as he loves authoritarian dictators!
Did you even watch that?
Dude sounded pretty much spot on to me.
He's talking about the Sandinistas while the US was funding the Contras.
The US at the time branded the Sandinistas terrorists while funding the Contras, who were legit terrorists.
Bernie is calling out the bullshit of terrorist being a political label in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even watch that?
100% of it.
Dude sounded pretty much spot on to me.
That's because you are sitting in your comfortable office chair listening to the sanitized Bernie version of it. The View actually stated this in a way better than I could:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Note what is said at 4:40 that adds perspective that you Bernie boys conveniently ignore, but also, something only very briefly mentioned:
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/k... [forbes.com]
Yeah. It's a fact: Bernie will always favor the socialist over the one who isn't, even the s
Re: Viva, competition (Score:4, Informative)
That's because you are sitting in your comfortable office chair listening to the sanitized Bernie version of it. The View actually stated this in a way better than I could:
Ya, more bullshit.
"It's unfair to simply say everything is bad."
The entire pile of shit can be summed up with that. You want to burn him alive because he has the intellect to develop nuance for opposing ideologies.
Note what is said at 4:40 that adds perspective that you Bernie boys conveniently ignore, but also, something only very briefly mentioned:
I have not, and likely never would, vote for Bernie Sanders. Pointing out your intellectual and analytical shortcomings doesn't make me a "Bernie Boy".
Now, back on topic.
Meghan McCain compares saying "Castro did good things" with "Hitler was a good orator."
Yes. She's spot on. It's exactly like that.
Castro did, and Hitler was. And both were brutal dictators. All I see are a bunch of shit-for-brains pundits brow-beating some dude because he dared demonstrate intellectual honesty.
Does it offend your delicate ideology to accept that some bad things also had some good things?
Yeah. It's a fact: Bernie will always favor the socialist over the one who isn't, even the socialists that lose elections but seize power anyways. Everybody who has called themselves a "democratic socialist" has always been the same way, without exception. And Bernie is certainly no exception there. Democratic socialism just means: "Yeah, you can have democracy, but only if you elect a socialist."
I didn't see any indication in either of those of Bernie "favoring" Maduro.
I see him explicitly referring to the need to not get involved at a time the US was chit chatting about interventionism.
The Maduro thing seems to have sorted itself out, but coming from Bernie's perspective, he was around when we used to knock over popular South American governments to put dictatorships in power just so we could further our foreign policy.
I don't think you know as much about that incident as you think you do. That was a proxy war between the US and the USSR. They were all, without a doubt, terrorists. The only reason Bernie prefers the Sandinistas is because he is more ideologically compatible with them, and just like with everything else, he's going to give you the sanitized version of it.
The Sandinistas overthrew a US-propped-up brutal dictatorship. They then formed a transitional government with various political factions (though they were in charge) which then fought a war with the former remnants of the dictatorship.
Ya, no. Fuck you, dude. Only you could try to construe that horse shit as a "Proxy War"
In the end, be lost. The Sandinistas held elections after defeating the Contras, and were elected into power.
Observers from the entire western world, including the US, signed off on the election as being free and fair.
Later on, they were voted out of power.
Democracy functioned as it will. Except for the part where we tried to overthrow it and put in a right-wing dictator.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a war crime if we just suggested they should do it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, more bullshit.
"It's unfair to simply say everything is bad."
The entire pile of shit can be summed up with that. You want to burn him alive because he has the intellect to develop nuance for opposing ideologies.
Nah, actually it's not so much Bernie that don't like as it is his fan club. Bernie actually does have something closely resembling an education, (closely in that his degree is in political science, which is basically just a "me too!" degree with limited economic value) but like every socialist out there, he mainly appeals to those who have none at all. Seriously I've yet to actually meet a Bernie bro who can accurately identify what is socialist and what isn't. And it's also a bit disingenuous to say that
Re: (Score:2)
Later on, they were voted out of power.
And unlike every US-supported regime in Central America, when they lost the election they stepped down.
Spot-on analysis.
Re: Viva, competition (Score:2)
Is that like when you get some Jan 6 'tourists' to try and take over the government or something? OR is it only bad when the left doesn't like democracy?
I don't have anything to do with either one of them. You tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, Bernie has gone almost his entire life receiving taxpayer money, and basically hasn't produced anything. I'd say he does the exact opposite of paying his fair share. He takes from the poor and gives to himself!
This sounds as in your life a future politician first has to become rich (and do tax fraud?) before he is fit to become a politician?
Oh, and does a rich person becoming a politician not also get a tax payer funded wage?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I'm not the one going around telling people to pay their fair share in taxes when they pay over a hundred fold of my net worth every year. Though I do think it would be good if politicians have actually worked for a living and have been productive in their life before they go around trying to tear down people who do produce.
Oh goody! (Score:2)
Another Space Race!
Re: (Score:3)
It would be great. It offers the competitive tendencies a path to go down the mutually beneficial rather than mutually harmful path.
The fools! The foolish fools! (Score:3)
"Instead of building an orbiting "gateway", China would directly put a nuclear-powered research station on the moon."
They should know that's not a good idea. Haven't they seen Space: 1999?
Re: (Score:2)
They should know that's not a good idea. Haven't they seen Space: 1999?
Especially with this bit:
$5 says they try to claim the whole Moon for China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they build their base there first.
And the next day the US Space Force starts having personnel transfer in from the US Marine Corp. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled 'Space Farce'.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled 'Space Farce'.
Because it not. Now I loved the Netflix series and all, but USSF is real. It is pretty much the consolidation of things various agencies and the military had already been doing in space. Plus by being its own branch it has the flexibility of doing Coast Guard like dual-status stuff, touching the law enforcement and military side of things. Something the other branches (USA USN USMC USAF) cannot do.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's real, just like the last time when they hollowed out Cheyenne Mountain for their headquarters and then shut down. Oh, well, a bunch of military contractors got paid, that's the most important thing.
Know what's most disgusting about the whole upcoming fiasco of the Space Farce? They're going to exceed NASA's budget by 2023.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can't explore the moon on "Meatloaf energy". (Score:2, Troll)
I've been looking but I can't seem to find it, how does China plan to power their lunar rovers that will be exploring the lunar poles? How does China plan to power habitats on the moon? Batteries and solar panels are fine for rovers that explore most of the lunar surface but to explore the poles, which are in permanent shade from the sun, that will not do. The entire point of exploring the poles is because there are spots there that are in permanent shade, if there is water on the moon that's the most li
Re: (Score:1)
2) China AND Russia are busying working on SMALL nuclear reactors that can be taken to the moon and mars. Sadly, the anti-science far left continues to fight that in the west. China and Russia are NOT so anti-science. However, Biden/DoD/DoE/NASA are busy with nuclear SMRs. Hopefully, this will continue in spite of the Goon Squad and others that are pushing to destroy western Nuclear power (odd
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Quoting parent post to (hopefully) bring more visibility.
1) the poles are nearly 100% lite. Yes, there are parts that are nearly 100% dark, but much of it has 98% sunlight.
2) China AND Russia are busying working on SMALL nuclear reactors that can be taken to the moon and mars. Sadly, the anti-science far left continues to fight that in the west. China and Russia are NOT so anti-science. However, Biden/DoD/DoE/NASA are busy with nuclear SMRs. Hopefully, this will continue in spite of the Goon Squad and others that are pushing to destroy western Nuclear power (oddly, they have no issue with China , Russia, Iran, N. Korea, etc having Nuclear Power).
3) putting bases on the poles using nuclear, and/or solar and/or geothermal, will be what will happen. WHy? Because of 1 above. The first 2 missions to lunar surface by starship (and likely China/Russia) will be CARGO. It will include LOTS of solar, batteries, and HOPEFULLY, nuclear. Combine that with adding a robotic tractor that mines for water and other elements, and we have a decent start. Once manned flights to their starts, we will likely bring inflatable habitats that can be set-up, and buried. In the mean time, we need to send various explorations for lunar tunnels i.e. lava tubes. These are the best way to set up large bases.
Good points. I'm not so sure Biden and DOE are "busy" with nuclear SMRs. If they wanted SMRs then they had ample oppotunities to get on that bandwagon in the last 40 and some years. NASA and DOD certainly want SMRs, and the US Navy has been doing very well with SMRs since Nautilus in 1950. All the people that know the science know that going beyond LEO requires nuclear power. They also know that they have to be careful about where and how they ta
Re: (Score:2)
Solar and nuclear would work.
But geothermal energy on the moon isn't within reach anytime soon. The deepest hole humans ever drilled on earth is 12 km. To get meaningful geothermal energy on the moon, you'd have to drill about 100 km.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you often spend that much time and energy expounding on topics that you rather clearly don't know shit about? Why?
Re: (Score:2)
You must know something on the topic to see I'm ignorant on the topic. Educate me. Tell me where I'm wrong. Most of all, tell me how China plans to power their manned and unmanned missions on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way everyone else does, a combination of solar and RTGs. Compact nuclear generators are also being developed, both for energy supply and propulsion, and thermocouple technology has seen a new renaissance. Plus of course battery tech is advancing by leaps and bounds, and fuel cells continue their steady march forward. Just like on Earth, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to energy supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like on Earth, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to energy supply.
I agree, and I'm confused why you felt the need to point that out as I made no claims that there was a one size fits all solution. I only point out that "Meatloaf energy" is not going to keep people alive on the moon, and it's not even going to keep people alive on Earth where the atmosphere is far more hospitable.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is this mysterious energy source that you think no one wants to talk about? Don't tell me you're one of the 'zero point energy' loonies.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is this mysterious energy source that you think no one wants to talk about? Don't tell me you're one of the 'zero point energy' loonies.
Nuclear fission.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, good grief, China, the ESA, JAXA and NASA have all done work on portable nuclear reactors that can be used in space.
Re: (Score:2)
I was reading this thread and breathlessly awaiting the Big Reveal. Imagine my disappointment...
Space Race Against America (Score:2)
If China gets control of the "High Frontier"... (Score:2)
...They'll have a boot on the throat of America even that laughable "Space Force" and the guy with the tool-shaped spaceship can't remove.
Re: (Score:2)
Both the US and Soviet empires tried controlling space, and both failed. Why do you think China would be able to?
Talk is cheap (Score:2)
China can talk all they want about moon base fantasies but talk is cheap. They've never even set foot on the moon, have no reusable rockets, now it's a lunar research station within 10 years? Suuuure.
And all that trash talk about the Artemis Accords are just nonsense intended to stoke hostility. The safety zones mentioned in the agreement are explicitly an "area wherein this notification and coordination will be implemented to avoid harmful interference". There's no mention whatsoever about "forbid the entr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reusability obviously helps to improve the pace of launch capability regardless of the cost benefits, and is a technological step forward that China doesn't appear to be anywhere near making.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the race too -- hope I can win (Score:2)
I'm still training for the 1969 Boston marathon.
So what? (Score:2)
The military significance of moon bases are
The US military estimated costs / benefits of a moon base decades ago. They decided it would take hundreds of launches from earth and wouldn't do much of anything for Americans except eject their earnings into space.
Re: (Score:2)
But what are are the benefits of the moon ? It's not military like it was during the Cold War.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. The US went there and had to leave again in a hurry. Basically a stunt. China is trying to stay. That is quite a bit different.
Re: china's stunt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Civilization needs new technologies that haven't been invented yet just to survived the rest of this century. I don't see that as an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Civilization is in no danger. Individual cities might be.
Re: (Score:2)
So?
Re: (Score:2)
Like what?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The US went there and had to leave again in a hurry. Basically a stunt. China is trying to stay. That is quite a bit different.
If it is a race, does the first person their have to set up a camp and live there?
Calling it a race - if China sets up a camp - are they the first people to get to the moon?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The US went there and had to leave again in a hurry. Basically a stunt. China is trying to stay. That is quite a bit different.
If it is a race, does the first person their have to set up a camp and live there?
Calling it a race - if China sets up a camp - are they the first people to get to the moon?
A race is a meaningless spectacle for the masses. Setting up a permanent presence is a power move and comes with all kinds of advantages. If you can make it work. It remains to be seen whether China can. I would say this is at best 50:50.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The US went there and had to leave again in a hurry. Basically a stunt. China is trying to stay. That is quite a bit different.
If it is a race, does the first person their have to set up a camp and live there?
Calling it a race - if China sets up a camp - are they the first people to get to the moon?
A race is a meaningless spectacle for the masses. Setting up a permanent presence is a power move and comes with all kinds of advantages. If you can make it work. It remains to be seen whether China can. I would say this is at best 50:50.
Claiming the place as their own might be one of those advantages. Now my quip about a space race version 2 is pretty much just a quip. I have no problem if this kicks us in the ass to jump start us. We seem to need competition to thrive.
Re: (Score:2)
Now my quip about a space race version 2 is pretty much just a quip. I have no problem if this kicks us in the ass to jump start us. We seem to need competition to thrive.
That I can agree to.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is funding private space initiatives as a matter of policy, and obviously continuing public initiatives as well. China has zero private space ability and probably never will have, that's a serious deficiency.
Also you seem to be overlooking the Artemis project, which will have a permanent orbiter and a base station on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how far underground, right? And they wouldn't have to dig holes or tunnels. Lunar regolith could be piled on top of buildings to whatever depth might be necessary. Radiation levels on the moon have been measured at about 200 times Earth normal. For the Artemis moon mission the astronauts will be there about a week. I think cosmic rays are more dangerous than ambient radiation over the long term.
Personally I'm not clear on what there is to be gained by a manned base that can't be done cheaper a
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is one way to learn how to live in space - go there. If we are ever to expand beyond our single planet we need to learn how to live elsewhere, and the moon is close enough to minimize the cost and danger.
Actually there are lava tubes on the moon that appear to be kilometers wide and run for scores or hundreds of kilometers. If they're located somewhere convenient they could provide a ready-made colony site.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, you wouldn't have to drill holes or tunnels. You could just build structures in a suitable depression on the surface and pile however much lunar dirt on top of them that is needed. Gravity is low and there's plenty of dirt.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, a shovel.
Re: (Score:3)
the radiation at that level will literally begin cooking a person alive. That's if the person decided to stay passed 24 hours
So are you one of the "people never landed on the moon" club, or what? Apollo 17 spent over 3 days on the surface, including 22 hours of EVAs. Most of the Apollo astronauts are still with us, they seem to be living much longer than the average American.
Even if you build under the ground on the moon the radiation doesn't go away, it's still deadly.
Oh, horsepuckey, three meters of lunar regolith will provide plenty of protection, a person living under three meters of regolith will get a lower radiation dose than if they were living at sea level on Earth.
The reason why the US didn't build a lunar base
Re: (Score:3)
What are you babbling about? They could have built a moon base in the 1980s if Congress had contained a few engineers instead of a useless shit-ton of lawyers. For a small fraction of the amount of money wasted every year on war toys and dick wagging competitions we would have had every advance you named decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have built a moon base in the 1980s if Congress had contained a few engineers instead of a useless shit-ton of lawyers. For a small fraction of the amount of money wasted every year on war toys and dick wagging competitions we would have had every advance you named decades ago.
Arguably having a lunar base at the time would have been a ferocious amount of dick wagging. If somebody had phrased it that way, they probably would have gone for it.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Nuclear missile bases on the moon? You really haven't thought that out, have you? Just a knee-jerk "CHINA BAD!!!"
Wasting my time here, because you idiots will never change your mind, but just consider for one moment how long it will take a missile to travel from Luna to Earth. Three days minimum. Plenty of time to intercept it or for that matter just reduce Beijing to a sheet of glass. And "come into view of the USA daily"? Really? So you're unaware that even if NYC is on the opposite side of t
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that you could exchange China and the US in your entire screed and it would still be fairly accurate.